Useful links about Kneeling - Always check dates

[Lux_et_veritas]

So many heated debates fly out of control on the subject of kneeling during communion. People quote various things from the internet on the subject without looking at the dates of the documents. I see many such opinions, correspondence and references with dates going back to 2000 and prior.

For future reference, lets look at some key documents and their dates:

**The English translation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (Third Typical Edition) © 2002 **which looks like this in hard copy. This instruction is available at the USCCB online, with adaptations.

CDW Correspondence: A string of letters sent by the CDW to various US bishops where people were denied Holy Communion while kneeling - dated July 2002 through February 2003.

INSTRUCTION Redemptionis Sacramentum (On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist). March 25, 2004

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Now, if we look at this sequentially, we find in the

GIRM (160) - (2002)

1. 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.

CDW Correspondence (2002-2003)

From Prot. n. 1322/02/L
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.

From Prot. n. 1322/02/L

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

Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004)

---

[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the *recognitio *of the Apostolic See. “However, ***if ***they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.[176]

[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

Conclusion:

The documents speak for themselves. Communion may not be denied to a kneeling communicant, nor can it be considered disobedient.

On the other hand, it is disobedient of a priest to deny Holy Communion or to attempt to force a communicant to stand.

A Catholic who is receiving Communion as permitted by the Holy See is not obligated in any way to obey a priest who is not obeying the Holy See.

Contrary to what some may believe, the USCCB must submit all proposed norms to the Holy See for approval. However, the Holy See does not require approval from the USCCB to make ammendments.

 

[Ham1]

This all great info that many of us have read before, but it helps seeing it in one place.

I believe the question we must all answer is this:

1. The normative posture (as approved by the Congregation) for the reception of Holy Communion in the United States is standing.
2. What conditions must be met for a faithful Catholic to not follow the norm?

Not to rehash the arguments previously, but it seems that the debate resides here.

Let’s please try to keep this a well-reasoned discussion.

 

[slewi]

Didn’t they just close this discussion down on the other thread?

 

[Ham1]

Yes. Because people were getting mean. It still seems to be a good topic for discussion. I think there are good points on both sides of the argument.

 

[totustuusmaria]

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

Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

Those just about say it all. Not, can we move on to real liturgical abuses? or do we have to be hung up forever on this?

 

[Ham1]

In fairness, those quotations say what the priest is not allowed to do in response to one’s posture at Communion. It does not, however, change the fact that the norm for the US is standing.

 

[totustuusmaria]

Ham1:

In fairness, those quotations say what the priest is not allowed to do in response to one’s posture at Communion. It does not, however, change the fact that the norm for the US is standing.

It doesn’t have to change the norm. It says that the faithful should not be imposed upon. In other words, it leaves the obedience to the norm up to the induvidual. I don’t know why they have a norm which they are forbidden to enforce, but they do. I’m glad they do. It would be embarrasing if the Church forbade kneeling to receive communion. That goes right along the lines of what Benedict was saying before his election: how can the Church be trusted if she forbids what she once held sacred?

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Ham1:

This all great info that many of us have read before, but it helps seeing it in one place.

I believe the question we must all answer is this:

1. The normative posture (as approved by the Congregation) for the reception of Holy Communion in the United States is standing.
2. What conditions must be met for a faithful Catholic to not follow the norm?

Not to rehash the arguments previously, but it seems that the debate resides here.

Let’s please try to keep this a well-reasoned discussion.

Ham,

The Holy See does not claim a “need to know” for kneeling in the United States. Therefore, this question is not relevant.

It seems pretty obvious that the Holy See enabled the US Bishops to encourage standing, which is not the universal norm. However, they did not want it forced upon people.

This is why we have letters that clarify the Vatican’s position prior to Redemptionis Sacramentum. The USCCB originally submitted, to my recollection, simply that the US norm was standing. However, the Holy See would not permit that statement without a provision which states Communion may not be denied on the basis of kneeling or standing.

What happens in this debate is that some people are annoyed with those who choose to kneel. They assume, very judgmentally, that the person is trying to “stand-out” by kneeling or attempting to draw attention to themselves. I would suggest that no one can know what is in another person’s heart when they choose to kneel.

Some say it would be most respectful and charitable for the person to simply follow the norm like everyone else. I say it is more charitable to let the person receive Christ the way their heart tells them. I believe this is the Vatican’s intent, as well.

So many people focus on the uncharitableness or “disobedience” of the kneeling communicant, they give no thought to the blatant disobedience on the part of the priest who would deny Holy Communion for that reason - a violation of Canon Law. It is a violation to force a communicant to stand.

Arguments in favor of “keeping the line moving” or “uniformity” simply do not fly. Christ did not create an army-like structure within his Church which requires Mass to be complete in an hour and a showy stage production of people all in sync with each other. Rather, Mass should take as long as required to be done reverently and respectful of our Lord and the time he is due. But too many people want to get done 5 minutes early so they may head to the store, the local diner, or get back in front of the TV.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Ham1:

In fairness, those quotations say what the priest is not allowed to do in response to one’s posture at Communion. It does not, however, change the fact that the norm for the US is standing.

And what? You can’t call these people disobedient because the CDW made clear in its correspondence to US Bishops that kneeling for Holy Communion in the US is not to be considered disobedient.

So, if the people are not being disobedient, what are they being? Uncharitable? Inconsiderate?

If you say yes to those, I would ask you to ponder it the other way. Would it not be charitable and considerate to accomodate those who are so inclined to kneel? I’ve heard so many accusations aimed at such people, suggesting that they are kneeling for this reason or that reason (all speculative) that it amounts to a form of detraction (at the very least).

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

totustuusmaria:

It doesn’t have to change the norm. It says that the faithful should not be imposed upon. In other words, it leaves the obedience to the norm up to the induvidual. I don’t know why they have a norm which they are forbidden to enforce, but they do. I’m glad they do. It would be embarrasing if the Church forbade kneeling to receive communion. That goes right along the lines of what Benedict was saying before his election: how can the Church be trusted if she forbids what she once held sacred?

I will speculate that it may have something to do with the Vatican permitting the USCCB to encourage people to stand, while not enabling an embarassing and shameful enforcement of the norm against the will of those affected.

I would hate to be a priest standing before the Just Judge having to explain the reasons why I denied Holy Communion to someone because they were kneeling. Then again, it makes me wonder if we would be “kneeling” before the Just Judge in as much as we can without our bodies.

Just think, Moses had to remove the sandals from his feet in order to approach the burning bush. And, we receive Christ, who is God, in our hands or on our tongue. Imagine how ridiculous it seems to deny someone to do so while on their knees if that is what their heart directs them to do.

 

[Chatter163]

It seems pretty obvious that the Holy See enabled the US Bishops to encourage standing, which is not the universal norm. However, they did not want it forced upon people.

Well stated. That having been said, I would sense that the Holy See–or at least those at CDW who write these responses–wish that standing had not been permitted as the norm in the USA. They would still be stating that communion could not be refused to those who kneel, but would not have to cover the other end, acknowledging that standing is the norm, etc. Their answers would not have to be couched in “even though X is true, Y should not be disallowed” type of language.

My concern is that communion on the tongue is the next issue. Yes, we know that it is the norm, but we also know that only a minority of Catholics in this country receive in this fashion. Adult and children’s catechetical programs overwhelmingly promote communion in the hand as the norm, and many do not even teach that it may be received on the tongue, let alone that it is the universal norm. Until recent years, it was not permitted at St. Peter’s Basilica, but so many Catholics from Western countries were attempting to receive in the hand, that they gave up trying to enforce it. This typically Roman capitulation usually lays the groundwork for requests for American indults and other liturgical battles.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

chatter:

Their answers would not have to be couched in “even though X is true, Y should not be disallowed” type of language.

Excellent representation.