Vatican call to formalise Communion ritual

[The_Old_Medic]

I refuse to kneel during communion. I also do not kneel during the consecration. I sit during the Consecration, and I bow from the waist. It frankly is nobodys business why I do not kneel, but i will explain.

I can NOT physically kneel on a bare floor. If I do, I have great pain (about 9 on a 1-10 scale, instantly), and I can not get up without assistance. This is because of two major compression fractures in my spine, extensive Psoriatic Arthritis and the results of being shot in the hip in 1964 in Vietnam.

I CAN kneel on a kneeler, or at an alter rail with a step up from the bare floor, but it is with great pain and I have significant difficulty getting up. I have to push off, and sometimes it takes a couple of tries to get up. It causes pain that usually takes some thirty minutes to an hour to completely subside (even with taking strong pain medication), which I take so that I CAN get to Mass in the first place.

I do not “look disabled” to others. I have had people come up to me and ask why I am “so disrespectful” because I do not kneel during the consecration, etc. I generally ignore their question, because frankly my pain and my disabilities are not any of their business.

And they have absolutely no right to be judging me, or anyone else.

I do not see inflicting a significant amount of unnecessary pain upon myself to be worshipful. It does NOT in any way improve the religious experience. And frankly, no human being should be judging another because of situations like this.

Jesus did NOT make people conform to any particular behavioral pattern. He took them as he found them, forgave their sins and sent them on their way. Over and over again, he rebuked those that said that only those that “conform” should get his attention.

Why do we insist on complicating a truly simple and profound process and message?

Jesus himself provided the Sacrament to his disciples while they were RECLINING AT SUPPER. He didn’t have them kneel down, stick out their tongues, etc. He didn’t require some “dumb show” to prove how observant they were. He broke the bread and distributed it to his disciples. It was NOT unleavened bread, it was not some sterile “host”, it was a loaf of bread for the table. He was actually eating a MEAL with his friends, which is why it was called the “Last Supper”.

We tend to forget that our savior was a living breathing CARPENTER. He was not some “supernatural” being walking around, he was a man in every respect. he had hunger, just like any other man. He had to go to the bathroom, like any other man. He bathed, he itched, his feet hurt after walking all day, just like any other normal human being.

If he was NOT a normal human being in every respect, then his experience on this earth, including his death, would have no meaning to mankind at all. He “became man”, with all of the foibles that man has. He got mad, and he used a whip to drive the money changers out of the temple. That shows he had a human temper.

Yes, he was God, but he did not utilize that “being” while he walked and talked on this earth. He “became man” in every respect. The Gospels do not paint a picture of some prissy “God like being”, they show a MAN in every respect.

We tend to forget that. But we darn well shouldn’t, because it is at the heart of what our religion means. The early Christians remembered that he was a man. Not s “mystical man”, not some"semblance" of a man, but a real, living and breathing man. With all of the strengths, and all but ONE of the weaknesses of being a man. The ONLY attribute that we have that he did not, was SIN.

Just as Jesus showed by his own example, early Christians had Communion as a part of a meal. How, and why, have we so complicated what was meant to be an act of fellowship and friendship among the believers? Yes, it IS HIS body, but he didn’t treat it as some mystical thing to be treated as something odd. He treated it as a part of the meal, a meal that he shared with his friends.

Yes, it is the body and blood of our Lord and Savior. It should always be treated as such. But, over and over and over again in the Gospels, Jesus condemned the kinds of “religious behaviors” that so many are insisting on today. That’s what he railed against the Pharisees about, they were all show, and no action.

For far too many Catholics, the show appears to be what is important. If you don’t kneel, don’t do everything exactly as we THINK you should, you are a 2nd rate Catholic (if a Catholic at all). They have totally lost the message of Christ, and have gotten caught up in the ritual to the point that the ritual is all that is really important. Exactly what Jesus said was WRONG.

I am sorry, but Pope Benedict XVI is simply wrong on this issue. He is doing EXACTLY what the Pharisees did, making the right behavior be the model, instead of the belief. And Jesus himself condemned that kind of thinking. He rebuked his followers for attempting to impose their “rules” on other people.

After reading some of the comments made by the “true believers” on this subject, and on a number of other threads on these forums, I begin to understand why there are so many “Protesting Churches”. Those that attempt to impose their vision of what Catholicism should be, drive far more people away from the church than they attract.

It is MY church too, and the fanatics will NOT drive me out of it.

 

[TrueLight]

It is MY church too, and the fanatics will NOT drive me out of it.

I totally understand what you’re saying about disabilities and why you will not kneel. I also understand that sometimes we do tend to get caught up in rituals.

However, I am learning from a 1930’s Catechism book called “Mass and the Sacraments” which is used in High School Catechism class that sacramental ceremonies have a purpose. Their purpose is

a) To direct our attention to the graces received in the sacraments;
b) To prepare us for the graces;
c) To represent to us the dignity of the sacrament;
d) To increase our devotion and reverence .

My question is, if kneeling and on the tongue is for fanatics, then who were they for at the masses before Vatican II, of which you were a part. Did you hate it then too?

 

[lakotak]

I refuse to kneel during communion. I also do not kneel during the consecration. I sit during the Consecration, and I bow from the waist. It frankly is nobodys business why I do not kneel, but i will explain.

I can NOT physically kneel on a bare floor. If I do, I have great pain (about 9 on a 1-10 scale, instantly), and I can not get up without assistance. This is because of two major compression fractures in my spine, extensive Psoriatic Arthritis and the results of being shot in the hip in 1964 in Vietnam.

I CAN kneel on a kneeler, or at an alter rail with a step up from the bare floor, but it is with great pain and I have significant difficulty getting up. I have to push off, and sometimes it takes a couple of tries to get up. It causes pain that usually takes some thirty minutes to an hour to completely subside (even with taking strong pain medication), which I take so that I CAN get to Mass in the first place.

I do not “look disabled” to others. I have had people come up to me and ask why I am “so disrespectful” because I do not kneel during the consecration, etc. I generally ignore their question, because frankly my pain and my disabilities are not any of their business.

And they have absolutely no right to be judging me, or anyone else.

I do not see inflicting a significant amount of unnecessary pain upon myself to be worshipful. It does NOT in any way improve the religious experience. And frankly, no human being should be judging another because of situations like this.

Jesus did NOT make people conform to any particular behavioral pattern. He took them as he found them, forgave their sins and sent them on their way. Over and over again, he rebuked those that said that only those that “conform” should get his attention.

Why do we insist on complicating a truly simple and profound process and message?

Jesus himself provided the Sacrament to his disciples while they were RECLINING AT SUPPER. He didn’t have them kneel down, stick out their tongues, etc. He didn’t require some “dumb show” to prove how observant they were. He broke the bread and distributed it to his disciples. It was NOT unleavened bread, it was not some sterile “host”, it was a loaf of bread for the table. He was actually eating a MEAL with his friends, which is why it was called the “Last Supper”.

We tend to forget that our savior was a living breathing CARPENTER. He was not some “supernatural” being walking around, he was a man in every respect. he had hunger, just like any other man. He had to go to the bathroom, like any other man. He bathed, he itched, his feet hurt after walking all day, just like any other normal human being.

If he was NOT a normal human being in every respect, then his experience on this earth, including his death, would have no meaning to mankind at all. He “became man”, with all of the foibles that man has. He got mad, and he used a whip to drive the money changers out of the temple. That shows he had a human temper.

Yes, he was God, but he did not utilize that “being” while he walked and talked on this earth. He “became man” in every respect. The Gospels do not paint a picture of some prissy “God like being”, they show a MAN in every respect.

We tend to forget that. But we darn well shouldn’t, because it is at the heart of what our religion means. The early Christians remembered that he was a man. Not s “mystical man”, not some"semblance" of a man, but a real, living and breathing man. With all of the strengths, and all but ONE of the weaknesses of being a man. The ONLY attribute that we have that he did not, was SIN.

Just as Jesus showed by his own example, early Christians had Communion as a part of a meal. How, and why, have we so complicated what was meant to be an act of fellowship and friendship among the believers? Yes, it IS HIS body, but he didn’t treat it as some mystical thing to be treated as something odd. He treated it as a part of the meal, a meal that he shared with his friends.

Yes, it is the body and blood of our Lord and Savior. It should always be treated as such. But, over and over and over again in the Gospels, Jesus condemned the kinds of “religious behaviors” that so many are insisting on today. That’s what he railed against the Pharisees about, they were all show, and no action.

For far too many Catholics, the show appears to be what is important. If you don’t kneel, don’t do everything exactly as we THINK you should, you are a 2nd rate Catholic (if a Catholic at all). They have totally lost the message of Christ, and have gotten caught up in the ritual to the point that the ritual is all that is really important. Exactly what Jesus said was WRONG.

I am sorry, but Pope Benedict XVI is simply wrong on this issue. He is doing EXACTLY what the Pharisees did, making the right behavior be the model, instead of the belief. And Jesus himself condemned that kind of thinking. He rebuked his followers for attempting to impose their “rules” on other people.

After reading some of the comments made by the “true believers” on this subject, and on a number of other threads on these forums, I begin to understand why there are so many “Protesting Churches”. Those that attempt to impose their vision of what Catholicism should be, drive far more people away from the church than they attract.

It is MY church too, and the fanatics will NOT drive me out of it.

I respect what you have said, but your opinion only helps to reinforce my resolve on what I previously said. I too cannot get down on my knees anymore, but if this were not the case, I would certainly have no problem kneeling before the Lord of us all.

 

[James924]

I never understood why we reverted backwards in reverence.

Throughout Church history, the Church has always been developing and it always developed upward in reverence, i.e. every gradual development in the liturgy was more reverent than the one before it. It’s like standing on the shoulders of our Fathers, or climbing a ladder. As understanding of the nature of the eucharist increased, reverence increased in accordance with the understanding of what it was, what He is.

Never before, to my knowledge had we ever made a conscious decision to climb down the ladder and go from more reverent to less reverent. Prior to the reforms after vatican II (it should be noted Vatican II itself says nothing about communion in the unconsecrated hand or while standing) the only time this, a conscious decision to climb down the ladder and be less reverent towards God than previously had been the case, had ever happened was in and after the protestant so-called "reformation" when the altar was replaced with a table, the people began facing eachother and all prayers that had anything to do with sacrifice were removed from the liturgy. So who’s example are we following here?

The fact that the very people who were in charge of reforming the liturgy after Vatican II had the specific goal of becoming more like protestants (see quote below) makes me think we should question why the current practice of communion in the hand while standing was ever implemented to begin with.

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

I should clarify before someone becomes offended that my point is not that receiving on the hand while standing is irreverent (although it has much more potential to be) but rather that it is less reverent and a step backwards in the church’s development of greater reverence.

 

[bkovacs]

I totally understand what you’re saying about disabilities and why you will not kneel. I also understand that sometimes we do tend to get caught up in rituals.

However, I am learning from a 1930’s Catechism book called “Mass and the Sacraments” which is used in High School Catechism class that sacramental ceremonies have a purpose. Their purpose is

My question is, if kneeling and on the tongue is for fanatics, then who were they for at the masses before Vatican II, of which you were a part. Did you hate it then too?

I guess St Dominic, Francis, and Benedict were all fanatics!.

 

[James924]

Jesus did NOT make people conform to any particular behavioral pattern. He took them as he found them, forgave their sins and sent them on their way.

You need to reread the Gospels and less modernist propoganda, or find a new parish if your priest has been feeding you this nonsense.

Why do we insist on complicating a truly simple and profound process and message?

This sounds verbatim like the argument protestant heretics use to complain about the Catholic church’s teachings.

He didn’t have them kneel down, stick out their tongues, etc. He didn’t require some “dumb show” to prove how observant they were.

So the majority of church history prior to the 1970s was a “dumb show”? You’re rant is beginning to make you sound like a small child (which I know you aren’t).

it was a loaf of bread for the table. He was actually eating a MEAL with his friends, which is why it was called the “Last Supper”.

Again, right out of the protestant playbook. The Mass is a solemn sacrifice, my friend. It is not a meal (although in a secondary or tertiary sense it also carries that meaning). There is no loaf of bread and no table, but rather the Lamb and the Altar. Every ounce of reverence our bodies are capable of ought to be poured forth during this solemn Sacrifice. It pains me to encounter so many Catholics today who genuinely have no idea how protestantized they’ve become in the last few decades, through little or no fault of their own.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I never understood why we reverted backwards in reverence.

Throughout Church history, the Church has always been developing and it always developed upward in reverence, i.e. every gradual development in the liturgy was more reverent than the one before it. It’s like standing on the shoulders of our Fathers, or climbing a ladder. As understanding of the nature of the eucharist increased, reverence increased in accordance with the understanding of what it was, what He is.

You err when you state “Throughout Church history”. You speak as if there is only one practice with the Church.

The norm for reception of the Eucharist in the Byzantine Rite is standing and has always been that. There is no provision for kneeling. If you kneel the priest may deny you.

We must keep in mind that the practice of the Latin Church not universal in the Catholic Church.

I also disagree with your assertion that each step the Latin Church has taken has been one of more reverence. I do not see the denial of the Precious Blood to the laity as being more reverent.

 

[TrueLight]

I guess St Dominic, Francis, and Benedict were all fanatics!.

Exactly!

Also, what can be better than being a fanatic for Christ?

All the reverence “fanatics” want Christ to have his due. One may agree or disagree, but that’s all it’s about.

 

[James924]

You err when you state “Throughout Church history”. You speak as if there is only one practice with the Church.

The norm for reception of the Eucharist in the Byzantine Rite is standing and has always been that. There is no provision for kneeling. If you kneel the priest may deny you.

We must keep in mind that the practice of the Latin Church not universal in the Catholic Church.

I think you misread me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the byzantine and eastern rights you receive via a spoon. That was a development upwards in reverence. So my statement is absolutely correct. In east and west throughout church history we have always developed towards more reverence, climbed UP the latter.

Do you understand me now? I think you must have misunderstood unless you’re trying to imply that the eastern right used to kneel and then made a decision not to anymore, which I don’t believe is the case.

Please don’t go around assuming nobody knows the Eastern rites exist.

 

[TrueLight]

You err when you state “Throughout Church history”. You speak as if there is only one practice with the Church.

We must keep in mind that the practice of the Latin Church not universal in the Catholic Church.

Br. David,

I know you always chime in and say something like that. I understand that you are pointedly reminding us that there is more than one rite,

But don’t you understand that whenever we are speaking of kneeling, we are speaking of the Latin rite? Why would we presume to say whether the Eastern Rite should kneel or not?

We are speaking of going back to the reverence that existed in the Latin Rite and you know that.

 

[lakotak]

I guess St Dominic, Francis, and Benedict were all fanatics!.

I have no problem being labeled a fanatic because I desire to see, those who can, kneel before Jesus in homage and adoration before we receive Him into our bodies and souls. However, I wonder where Catholic are heading that label us fanatics who choose to love and adore Jesus on our knees at Communion and would like to see this done as the norm. Where is the reverence for Jesus Christ. Are we receiving out of ritual, obedience or love?

 

[James924]

I also disagree with your assertion that each step the Latin Church has taken has been one of more reverence. I do not see the denial of the Precious Blood to the laity as being more reverent.

Stamping out heresy absolutely is always more reverent than letting heresy remain. This was a change made in response to a heresy. Reverting back to communion in the hand was not done to curb a heresy, but to “modernize the church” and to “strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.”

Its funny, we have plenty of eastern right in our area, I love the eastern rite liturgies and I this is the first time a member of an eastern right has ever disagreed with me on the issue of reverence and whats happened to the latin rite in the past 3 decades.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think you misread me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the byzantine and eastern rights you receive via a spoon. That was a development upwards in reverence. So my statement is absolutely correct. In east and west throughout church history we have always developed towards more reverence, climbed UP the latter.

Depends on the sui juris Church you go to. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church does not use the spoon except for during Presanctifed Liturgies.
Do you understand me now? I think you must have misunderstood unless you’re trying to imply that the eastern right used to kneel and then made a decision not to anymore, which I don’t believe is the case.
*

No but you are implying the kneeling is more reverent than standing which would mean that the east is less reverent than the west.

I also see you avoided the no Precious Blood for the laity issue I brought up.

 

[James924]

I also see you avoided the no Precious Blood for the laity issue I brought up.

How did I avoid it? I said it was to curb a heresy. Go back and read again please.

 

[James924]

No but you are implying the kneeling is more reverent than standing which would mean that the east is less reverent than the west.

I absolutely believe kneeling is more reverent than standing. I have no problem saying that. You’re talking as though I should feel guilty about that.

But I would only have a problem with the Eastern rites if they had once knelt (more reverent) and then made a concsious decision to revert backwards to standing (less reverent).

I’ll state again, I absolutely believe kneeling is more reverent than standing.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I absolutely believe kneeling is more reverent than standing. I have no problem saying that. You’re talking as though I should feel guilty about that.

If that is what you think I am saying then I apologize. I do not wish you to feel guilty for thinking that but I want you to understand that there are others who think that standing is more reverent and that kneeling is penitential and just as you should not feel guilty for what you think we should not be made to feel guilty for what we think.

But I would only have a problem with the Eastern rites if they had once knelt (more reverent) and then made a concsious decision to revert backwards to standing (less reverent).

I’ll state again, I absolutely believe kneeling is more reverent than standing.

And I will state again, I absolutely disagree with you.

Let us now move on as friends.

I will pray for you and as that you pray for me.

 

[James924]

Let us now move on as friends.

I will pray for you and as that you pray for me.

Deal

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

How did I avoid it? I said it was to curb a heresy. Go back and read again please.

I did reread it and saw what I missed. Sorry about that.

Then it was a step backwards to allow the laity the chalice once again?

Again, this is another place we disagree.

The point I am trying to make is that while you see the move to more reverence that not everyone agrees with that point of view so it is not a fact.

 

[thomas_jd]

The Bishops of Scotland decided to change the practice of kneeling, during the Eucharistic Preface and during the final Blessing & dismissal, to standing!
" Per Bishop Joseph Toal of Argyll and The Isles".

Changes occur next Advent.
Another sign of unity!

 

[James924]

I did reread it and saw what I missed. Sorry about that.

Then it was a step backwards to allow the laity the chalice once again?

Again, this is another place we disagree.

The point I am trying to make is that while you see the move to more reverence that not everyone agrees with that point of view so it is not a fact.

Then I should restate my initial thoughts but add the caveat that curbing heresy is absolutely and obviously a worthy reason for an exception to that general trend of development towards more reverence. An exception, by nature, should not be used as an argument for a rule (which is why its called an exception to the rule.

Then it was a step backwards to allow the laity the chalice once again?

Again, the issue of the cup was not an issue of reverence but of doctrine. My statement was about reverence. So because the cup was not withheld as part of a development in reverence, then it goes without saying that the return of the cup would not be a reversion in reverence. Neither the withholding or returning had anything to do with reverence in the first place.

The cup was withheld for doctrinal reasons and it was returned, I fear, for illadvised ecumaniacal reasons, to become more like protestants in our worship.