Vatican: Receiving Eucharist kneeling will be norm at papal liturgies

[benedictgal]

Actually there are a few who could share that title

We have bgal who thinks the GIRM is not correct

And Br who doesn’t know when a Communion procession ends(he leaves everyone standing or kneeling at the altar)

and certainly you, who also have trouble keeping up with the discussion.

Lux

I’m still waiting for something other than an unfounded claim. I did quote the posts.

Lux

First of all, I have never said that the GIRM was incorrect. Please get your facts straight. What I have consistently said is that people’s interpretations of the GIRM are erroneous and misleading.

The problem is that there are those who insist on confusing what the universal norm is for receiving communion with what is an adaptation. That is the big problem here. Furthermore, there are those who insist that communicants who follow the universal norm when receiving Holy Communion are disobedient. Rome has consistently stated that this claim is false.

Brendan is doing his part by citing authoritative sources and trying to correct a host of inaccuracies that seem to plague this thread.

Unfortunately, those who see fit to disagree have not made their point and have now resorted to personal insults.

 

[benedictgal]

I think you are mistaken again. Kindly provide a source that says US adaptations are to be ignored in favor of the universal norm. WHICH, by the way, is not “kneeling” but “kneeling OR standing” per all the versions of the GIRM that I have located. So there again, you are stretching it to mean something in accord with your interpretation and passing the mistruth on to the rest of us.

I almost bought it, except for that nagging inner “something” that said I should check it out. I could not substantiate your claims.

Even before the adaptation was permitted to the US for standing, the GIRM was stated as either/or, universally. Details in post #191.

No, it is you who are mistaken. What part of this do you not understand:

The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 ¶ 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. 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 Institutio 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.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Again, Msgr. Marini, the Holy Father’s Master of Ceremonies, has made the same point when he states that:

As for communion placed by the pope on the tongues of the faithful, kneeling – during his recent visit to Santa Maria di Leuca and Brindisi – Marini affirms that this will become “a regular practice at papal celebrations.” And he continues:

«In this regard, it must not be forgotten that the distribution of communion in the hand remains, from the juridical point of view, a dispensation from the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to the bishops’ conferences that have asked for it. The practice adopted by Benedict XVI tends to emphasize the continued validity of the norm for the whole Church. In addition, one might also note a preference for the use of this manner of distribution which, without taking anything away from the other, better highlights the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, aids the devotion of the faithful, and makes it easier to enter into the sense of mystery. In our time, pastorally speaking, it is urgent to recover and emphasize these aspects.»

Clearly, he is talking about the universal norm, which is kneeling and on the tognue. How hard is that to understand?

 

[ElizabethPH]

Altar rails need to be reinstalled in the church buildings they were removed from. I honestly believe that communion went faster when we all knelt at the rail.

I certainly agree. But at the same time it should not be a set back just because there are no rails. We’ve had a Latin Mass said without rails and it went very smoothly. The front pews were left empty for communion.

And I hope this more reverent practice spreads fast. It would be wonderful!!

 

[Walking_Home]

Actually there are a few who could share that title

We have bgal who thinks the GIRM is not correct

And Br who doesn’t know when a Communion procession ends(he leaves everyone standing or kneeling at the altar)

and certainly you, who also have trouble keeping up with the discussion.

Lux

I’m still waiting for something other than an unfounded claim. I did quote the posts.

Lux

---

Good try — but the way you both spin —the title is all yours.

 

[benedictgal]

Thanks for listening to that nagging inner something,

Lux

Once again, both of you are wrong. Regarding the issue of the reception of Holy Communion by the faithful, both of you have gotten the unversal norm, which is applied all thorughout the Latin Rite of the Church, with an adaptation, which applies to specific episcopal conferences.

The 2002 response from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments remains in force, contrary to what both you and Joysong have posted. Msgr. Marini, in his explanation, reminds the faithful that the universal norm is to receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue. Receiving Holy Communion standing and in the hand is just that, an adaptation.

Engaging in document warfare without having a clear understanding of what entails a universal norm is a grossly inaccurate way of interpreting things. That is not how the Church sees it. That is why the Congregation is careful in making the distinctinction between universal and adaptation.

 

[Joysong]

B'gal:

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

As for communion placed by the pope on the tongues of the faithful, kneeling – during his recent visit to Santa Maria di Leuca and Brindisi – Marini affirms that this will become “a regular practice at papal celebrations.” And he continues:

These two quotes do NOT in any way substantiate your claim that the UNIVERSAL NORM is to kneel. It simply states that as Cardinal, Ratzinger said that kneeling has a long tradition, with which I agree. It is not an official document.

Citing Marini’s words that kneeling will be a practice at papal celebrations, is limited to “papal celebrations” and in no way answers my question either, which was stated very clearly, and which you sidestepped with innuendo:

Originally Posted by Joysong
Kindly provide a source for your claim that US adaptations are to be ignored in favor of the universal norm. WHICH, by the way, is not “kneeling” but “kneeling OR standing” per all the versions of the GIRM that I have located.

Even before the adaptation was permitted to the US for standing, the GIRM was stated as either/or, universally. Details are in post #191 where my question there is also unanswered: “I would need to see your source, for I see nothing in the older GIRM or subsequent GIRM regulations that spells out that people are to kneel for communion.” [as opposed to “kneel OR stand.”]

Instead of a source for both questions, you wrote and highlighted:

No, it is you who are mistaken. What part of this do you not understand:

2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

And speaking of Marini’s statement re papal celebrations, and which is not official documentation, you wrote:
Clearly, he is talking about the universal norm, which is kneeling and on the tognue. How hard is that to understand?

Would you like me to list the umpteen times I have said I agree that those who chose to kneel are not to be denied? Would this help you to see it itemized before your eyes, post for post, in black and white? That is NOT my disagreement, and I don’t know whether you are being deliberately naive or whether it is because you cannot prove your point with documentation and prefer to spin my question into a ridiculous comedy of your own.

No. My question stands as written again here, and is still unanswered, and unsubstantiated. The UNIVERSAL NORM is to “kneel OR stand” as per the GIRM. It is not to kneel as you claim per an isolated statement from C. Ratzinger, as if this was proof enough. His words as Cardinal do NOT overule the written GIRM that the “universal” norm is to “kneel OR stand.”

In my post #191, you will read:

At the time this directive was issued the US Bishops did not establish a posture, although Communion processions with reception standing quickly became the custom throughout the United States, as they did in much of the world.

Therefore, the application of standing does not apply only to the US, but elsewhere globally. But that was not my question, even though the info is pertinent.

I ask again, are you going to answer the two questions above with specific documentation, or give me another spin around the merry-go-round, and insult my intelligence as though I never “got” it.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

---

Good try — but the way you both spin —the title is all yours.

I am still waiting for backup on this. Please don’t respond only to have the last word.

As I said, I have given the instances, you just make unsubstantiated statements.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Just one more piece of documentation from the Adaptations

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

In response to the request of His Excellency, the Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, Bishop of Belleville, President of the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, made in a letter dated November 20, 2002, and by virtue of the faculties granted to this Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II, we grant recognition of the text excerpted from the English language translation of parts of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, as found in the attached copy, and which shall be inserted into future editions of the Roman Missal published in English for use in the dioceses of the this same Conference.

Mention of the recognition granted by this Congregation must be included in the published text of these norms.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

From the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, April 17, 2002.

• Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estevez
  Prefect

• Franciscus Pius Tamburrino
  Archbishop-Secretary

 

[fix]

I agree with you. It is allowed and I have said so numerous times already. However, it is not the mind of the Church,

I am nonplussed. Rome has said, specifically, kneeling is allowed and is not disobedient. That is the mind of the Church. The authentic interpreter of the law has said how we may follow the law.

who would prefer that we all follow the directive of the pastor or bishop, and constructed the rubric accordingly.

Obeying the bishop is good. The problem arises when some lesser authority contradicts a higher authority. I do not impute bad motives to people who choose to kneel.

Due to man’s inability to accept the directiive of standing [the US adaptation], the Church in the US allows it by concession rather than see a person deprived of the Eucharist.

This is not what Rome has said. This seems to be your interpretation. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

It purplexes me why the opponents are so upset about this, but have no opinion about the other universal norm to stand throughout the canon until the end of mass? This seems to be a pick-and-choose mentality based on one’s private preference. I would wager that these same people who oppose the adaptation [standing] and opt for the universal norm of kneeling for communion would yell to the rafters if they were made to stand through the canon. There, too, the adaptation for the US permits kneeling, and that one they eagerly accept.

You impute this so called pick and choose mentality where none exists. Do you have evidence that people reject the universal norm?

So I ask, why is US adaptation opposed when one prefers to follow the ‘universal norm’ of kneeling for communion – yet there is another ‘universal norm’ that says to stand during the Eucharistic Prayer, which they ignore? Well, in that case they are eager to adopt the US adaptation and overule the universal norm. Fickle bunch, or rather as the GIRM calls them, “arbitrary.”

Rome has stated the universal norm. Rome has said people may follow that norm even though the country has an exception. You seem to fault people for doing what they are allowed to do.

I accept the authority of the Church. If people choose to kneel they are free to do so. Who am I to say otherwise?

 

[fix]

Unfortunately, there are those who will post just to post with little regard as to accuracy and correct interpretation of the GIRM. Furthermore, as you pointed out, there is no way you can be disobedient or in defiance if you are adhering to what is the universal norm for the Church.

Yes, so if one is not disobedient then one is not acting wrongly or illicitly. It is as if some read the interpretation as if Rome is “winking” claiming those who kneel really are wrong, but please do not say they are wrong. That makes Rome look disingenuous.

As I said before the bishops asked for clarification, received it, now some want to minimize it, or reinterpret it, to mean some other thing then was intended.

I suspect that the deeper issue is that there is a great deal of resistance to the Holy Father’s reform of the reform. There is not hing wrong with the OF. It’s the manner in which people, conferences and committees have tinkered with it that is the problem.

I guess that is another thread but that was what I was getting at.

I see folks emphasizing select parts of the GIRM without taking the interpretations from Rome as important. Either we accept the authority from Rome or we do not.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

fix;

I accept the authority of the Church. If people choose to kneel they are free to do so. Who am I to say otherwise?

I believe Rome said that a person could not be denied Holy Communion, if they present themselves kneeling.

However, I believe it still stands that such a person should receive pastoral counseling on this, and why it would be proper to receive as the community does, i.e. standing.

To me, when I watch Mass on EWTN and see a few individuals kneel when they receive, it looks odd and tends to come across as a oneupmanship on the part of the person receiving.

Kneeling also seems to force the priest in an odd posture to give the person the host. The priest has to bend down to the person. This seems strange.

Jim

 

[fix]

fix;

I believe Rome said that a person could not be denied Holy Communion, if they present themselves kneeling.

However, I believe it still stands that such a person should receive pastoral counseling on this, and why it would be proper to receive as the community does, i.e. standing.

The documents from Rome go on to say one who kneels is not disobedient and also make a point to mention the theology behind kneeling. I say again Rome has spoken to the issue.

Why do we continue to paint these folks as something other than Rome says?

To me, when I watch Mass on EWTN and see a few individuals kneel when they receive, it looks odd and tends to come across as a oneupmanship on the part of the person receiving.

I do not mean to be uncharitable but is it possible you offer rash judgment here? I am in no position to judge their motives. I am edified when I see it.

Kneeling also seems to force the priest in an odd posture to give the person the host. The priest has to bend down to the person. This seems strange.

Jim

We have come to a point where kneeling to receive our Lord is strange. I pray our Pope continues the reform of the reform.

I mean you no disrespect.

 

[benedictgal]

Both Joysong and Lux quote only what is an adaptation. Neither seem to understand that is simpoly just that, an adaptation. The universal norm os to receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue. Furthermore, this has been stated by the Holy Father’s Master of Ceremonies and by the Holy See.

This reminds me of an old Ann Richards quote relating to the time when the Texas Legislature was debating the merits of the lottery. To paraprhase what she said: “Unless God sends this ruling borne by angels, people won’t believe it, nor will they understand it.”

Rome has spoken rather clearly. There is a mistaken notion that an adaptation trumps a universal norm as far as the reception of Holy Communion is concerned. Folks in this thread level cheap insults at people who choose to take this form by claiming that they are show-offs and other such things. Rome has stated that bishops, priests, deacons and EHMCs are in error if they deny someone Holy Communion simply because they opt to follow the universal norm.

 

[Joysong]

Both Joysong and Lux quote only what is an adaptation. Neither seem to understand that is simpoly just that, an adaptation. The universal norm is to receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue. Furthermore, this has been stated by the Holy Father’s Master of Ceremonies and by the Holy See.

Again, you fail to provide the source for that statement, which causes me to believe you cannot. Instead, you would have us believe your error.

The universal norm used by the entire Church is the GIRM, which clearly states “kneel or stand” --yet you have reduced it to say only “kneeling” is the universal norm. I agree that for many kneeling is a traditional practice, and that Ratzinger has alluded to that as Cardinal, but his single statement is not rubric of the GIRM, the official document that the Church uses for clarity and teaching.

The GIRM clearly states, once again, that the practice is to kneel OR stand, and that tenet negates your former statements. Perhaps that is why you cannot admit, yes, my mistake - I agree. Does that bother you, B’gal? Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Do you believe the GIRM is in error?

I am still awaiting an answer to my other question, which you also avoid. I asked for a source for your claim that a Universal Norm overules the adaptation permitted for any country, i.e., the US, which you alluded to in your earlier statement.

It is far more humble to admit your error and say so rather than skirt the issue with the same old rhetoric. This failure to address your prior statements and provide a source has caused your credibility to wane greatly.

 

[MHalsey]

Both Joysong and Lux quote only what is an adaptation. Neither seem to understand that is simpoly just that, an adaptation. The universal norm os to receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue. Furthermore, this has been stated by the Holy Father’s Master of Ceremonies and by the Holy See.

This reminds me of an old Ann Richards quote relating to the time when the Texas Legislature was debating the merits of the lottery. To paraprhase what she said: “Unless God sends this ruling borne by angels, people won’t believe it, nor will they understand it.”

Rome has spoken rather clearly. There is a mistaken notion that an adaptation trumps a universal norm as far as the reception of Holy Communion is concerned. Folks in this thread level cheap insults at people who choose to take this form by claiming that they are show-offs and other such things. ** Rome has stated that bishops, priests, deacons and EHMCs are in error if they deny someone Holy Communion simply because they opt to follow the universal norm.**

I have not seen anyone on this thread deny this (in bold above).

While I agree that Rome has spoken on this particular aspect of how we receive communion (ie. no one can be denied), Rome also says we should do as our Bishops direct. Our bishop is the shepherd of his flock. We should do as he directs. If my bishop directs that we should stand for communion, I will stand. If he directs that we should kneel, I will do so.

As far as cheap insults go, I have seen some uncharitable comments from both sides of the argument. This does nothing to foster unity. If we as Catholics cannot even have a civil discussion about how we receive communion… well we know where that leads.

 

[Joysong]

Fix:

Rome has stated the universal norm. Rome has said people may follow that norm even though the country has an exception. You seem to fault people for doing what they are allowed to do.

I don’t know how well you followed this thread, so for you, I make allowances that perhaps you have not read my posts.

Kindly pull any one of them where “I personally” labeled people disobedient or defiant for kneeling for communion. You may have misread my meaning and supplied your own word, which is incorrect. I simply quoted what is written in the GIRM, that people MAY receive kneeling, out of private or arbitrary choice. The hierarchy who drafted the document chose that particular word which has a significant connotation. It is THIS connotation that I am adopting, as a member of the Church who read the document. In no way did I substitute the word ‘defiance’ or ‘disobedience’ – both of which words you charged me with using. May we start over on a fresh foot and not allege meanings that were not there?

Whether or not posture for communion is an adaptation is moot.
It is an APPROVED and recognized one that just about every Catholic of good conscience and respect for authority will abide by. Pastoral deference is given to those with delicate sensitivity who prefer their own **arbitrary **choice. Note well the word the GIRM used. It was not lightly chosen, but recognizes the obstinence of some, and the church does not desire to isolate them from the sacraments. Hence they are permitted to deviate from the desired norm as a concession, but this is not what is envisioned as desirable for unity.

Quote:
42. 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. 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

.

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.

1. With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal.
2. Among gestures included are also actions and processions: of the priest going with the deacon and ministers to the altar; of the deacon carrying the Evangeliary or Book of the Gospels to the ambo before the proclamation of the Gospel; of the faithful presenting the gifts and coming forward to receive Communion. It is appropriate that actions and processions of this sort be carried out with decorum while the chants proper to them occur, in keeping with the norms prescribed for each.
3. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include

The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above);

The GIRM is exceptionally clear, leaving no wiggle room, although many will attempt to do so, as this thread has proven.
Private expressions that deviate from formulated rubrics are individualistic, arbitrary, nonconforming choices that are often prideful insistence upon retaining one’s own way and a refusal or INABILITY to accept the instructions of authority, for whatever reason. In charity and love for these souls’ apparent ligature of understanding, the Church is MOST accomodating. Yet this is not the mind of the Church, in essence.

Therefore, if you feel indignant that Rome has spoken, and She has through the GIRM using specific language calling the exception ‘arbitrary,’ then rather than fault me for repeating it, you need to take up your disagreement with Rome itself.

Thanks for providing the opportunity to clarify this better, Fix. I wouldn’t want to leave you with a wrong sense of my meaning and harbor a wrong notion.

 

[fix]

While I agree that Rome has spoken on this particular aspect of how we receive communion (ie. no one can be denied), Rome also says we should do as our Bishops direct. Our bishop is the shepherd of his flock. We should do as he directs. If my bishop directs that we should stand for communion, I will stand. If he directs that we should kneel, I will do so.

Are you saying that a bishop would contradict Rome?

 

[Walking_Home]

I have not seen anyone on this thread deny this (in bold above).

While I agree that Rome has spoken on this particular aspect of how we receive communion (ie. no one can be denied), Rome also says we should do as our Bishops direct. Our bishop is the shepherd of his flock. We should do as he directs.** If my bishop directs that we should stand for communion, I will stand.** If he directs that we should kneel, I will do so.

As far as cheap insults go, I have seen some uncharitable comments from both sides of the argument. This does nothing to foster unity. If we as Catholics cannot even have a civil discussion about how we receive communion… well we know where that leads.

---

Then you have allowed yourself to become a pawn – to be manipulated by the bishops in their disobedience to Rome. You have allowed yourself to become the instrument–of their disobedience.

 

[Joysong]

Fix, I don’t believe MHalsey was saying that at all. Rome specifically gave permission to the US bishops to determine the posture for their respective dioceses, which may include for many or most, that of standing, since this was the petition they sought and were granted. Perhaps some diocesan bishops would ask their faithful to kneel – it is their decision and it may vary from diocese to diocese. However, Rome said in GIRM #390 of my last post that:

It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include

The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above);

B’gal has caused confusion by stating previously that Rome issued a universal norm to kneel and that it overules any adaptation of the US bishops if they opt for standing, as was given in their recognito. I am still awaiting proof for her source, as it is not correct, and is the cause of this mess in understanding, since Rome stated “kneel OR stand.”

Nevertheless, as you read in my last post, the bishops have made clear to their clergy, I trust, that in cases of arbitrary private preference, they will not refuse communion. With that, I do agree.

History and Interpretation of the Norm

In the 1967 document Eucharisticum mysterium (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery), the Sacred Congregation of Rites (now called the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) established that,

1. … In accordance with the custom of the Church, the faithful may receive communion either kneeling or standing. One or the other practice is to be chosen according to the norms laid down by the conference of bishops.

At the time this directive was issued the US Bishops did not establish a posture, although Communion processions with reception standing quickly became the custom throughout the United States, as they did in much of the world.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (3rd edition) gives the same legislation, stating,

160 … The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops.

Acting upon this provision of the GIRM, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sought and obtained, in March 2002, a particular norm for the United States.

1. 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.
   ewtn.com/expert/answers/c…on_posture.htm

I hope this has helped you.

 

[fix]

Joy,

It appears you may be confusing things more than clarifying.

Let’s start with the link you provided:

While the desirability of everyone in the congregation making the common gestures and postures throughout the Mass is clear (a sign of unity), recent interpretations of these norms by the Holy See provides some insight into the mind of the Church. It should be noted that the Holy See alone can authentically interpret legislation it has initiated or approved…

Then:

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…

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."

Finally,

when the GIRM used the term arbitrary in the context you posted does that refer to the universal norm of kneeling to receive in the Latin rite?