Vatican: Receiving Eucharist kneeling will be norm at papal liturgies

[Chellow]

Sorry for the typo.

That’s not fair that I can’t partake of my Lord on my knees.

 

[benedictgal]

Sorry for the typo.

That’s not fair that I can’t partake of my Lord on my knees.

Just who says that you can’t? Rome has consistently ratified and re-ratified your right to make use of the universl norm.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hi,

I asked a seminarian friend about this, and he confirmed that you have misinterpreted the universal norm. It is not kneeling.

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

Hi,

I asked a seminarian friend about this, and he confirmed that you have misinterpreted the universal norm. It is not kneeling.

Lux

And a seminarian wuuld know this for sure? Has he seen the original Latin version of the GIRM or are both of you just looking at the English translation. The standing part is decided by the individual Episcopal Conferences. That is, in fact, what is noted in the other languages I posted.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

And a seminarian wuuld know this for sure? Has he seen the original Latin version of the GIRM or are both of you just looking at the English translation. The standing part is decided by the individual Episcopal Conferences. That is, in fact, what is noted in the other languages I posted.

I think I will trust the professors at the seminary over you. They do teach liturgy there, and I KNOW their credentials.

 

[benedictgal]

I think I will trust the professors at the seminary over you. They do teach liturgy there, and I KNOW their credentials.

Actually, that depends on the seminary and on the professors. I have met some professors whose orhodoxy and fidelity to both the norms and the Holy See, for that matter, are quesionable. Plus, there are those who may well be inclined to discourage kneeling in the first place.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

as I said, I know their credentials. You are just a screen name on the internet.

And Joysong did adequately refute your interpretation. You have not given any valid documentation for your claim.

I am not disputing your claim to the right to kneel, which I never did. But I do dispute your personal interpretation of norms.

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

Unfortunately, ths thread has seen the ugly side of the debate as to whether or not to kneel. There are those who would have us believe that kneeling is not a universal norm when, in fact, it is. Were it not, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments would not be so adamant in defending the posture against those who would deny communicants the right to receive Holy Communion because they knelt.

Evidently, even the statements made by the Holy Father’s Master of Ceremonies indicating that kneeling was, in fact, a valid posture and universal, will not convince people otherwise.

The fact that Pope Benedict has made it a point of using this posture for the papal Masses should be taken into account. There are those who cliaim not to have any issue with kneeling, but, the tone of their posts and the manner in which they are posted indicate otherwise.

 

[Walking_Home]

Unfortunately, ths thread has seen the ugly side of the debate as to whether or not to kneel. There are those who would have us believe that kneeling is not a universal norm when, in fact, it is. Were it not, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments would not be so adamant in defending the posture against those who would deny communicants the right to receive Holy Communion because they knelt.

Evidently, even the statements made by the Holy Father’s Master of Ceremonies indicating that kneeling was, in fact, a valid posture and universal, will not convince people otherwise.

The fact that Pope Benedict has made it a point of using this posture for the papal Masses should be taken into account. There are those who cliaim not to have any issue with kneeling, but, the tone of their posts and the manner in which they are posted indicate otherwise.

---

I agree.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Unfortunately, ths thread has seen the ugly side of the debate as to whether or not to kneel. There are those who would have us believe that kneeling is not a universal norm when, in fact, it is…

OK–this is from the article which started this whole discussion

He said “it is necessary not to forget that the distribution of Communion in the hand, from a juridical standpoint, remains up to now an indult,” which is an exemption from a general requirement that is granted by the Vatican to the bishops’ conferences which have requested it. He said the pope’s adoption of the traditional practice of distributing Communion “aims to highlight the force of the valid norm for the whole church.”

Where is standing mentioned as an indult? As I have said many times–you cannot apply the statements regarding “on the tongue” to kneeling. Hand is an indult, standing is a norm.

However, the pope’s preference for the traditional practice is not meant to “take anything away from the other” permissible form of standing or receiving the Eucharist in the hand, he said.

Notice it says preference, and practice—nothing about any universal norm. Until you have valid documentation for your interpretation, it is just a personal interpretation.

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

As I noted before, unfortunately, there are those who only quoted from the English GIRM, making the assumption that it was applicable to all. However, having quoted the GIRM in Spanish and in Italian, one can see that this is not entirely the case.

Others have made the mistaken intepretation that the GIRM calls for standing for the EP. However, that, too, has been proving wrong.

Therefore, those who maintain that I am merely expressing my opinion have forgotten that they are doing the same thing themselves. Furthermore, the crux of the discussion is the fact that the Episcopal Conferences have the option of making “standing” the norm; however, they cannot make someone not kneel to receive Holy Communion. In other words, they cannot overrule what Rome has vehemently defended.

 

[Chellow]

Just who says that you can’t? Rome has consistently ratified and re-ratified your right to make use of the universl norm.

I know it’s the universal norm, but it’s kind of hard to kneel down with the production line that we have to receive the body and blood of our Lord, in 98% of our churches.

 

[MHalsey]

As I noted before, unfortunately, there are those who only quoted from the English GIRM, making the assumption that it was applicable to all. However, having quoted the GIRM in Spanish and in Italian, one can see that this is not entirely the case.

Others have made the mistaken intepretation that the GIRM calls for standing for the EP. However, that, too, has been proving wrong.

Therefore, those who maintain that I am merely expressing my opinion have forgotten that they are doing the same thing themselves. Furthermore, the crux of the discussion is the fact that the Episcopal Conferences have the option of making “standing” the norm; however, they cannot make someone not kneel to receive Holy Communion. In other words, they cannot overrule what Rome has vehemently defended.

You never responded to Joysong’s post #238. In it, he points out your interpretation by your use of commas. Go back and look.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3904125&postcount=238

Anyone knows that moving or introducing commas into a sentence can drastically change its meaning.

 

[benedictgal]

You never responded to Joysong’s post #238. In it, he points out your interpretation by your use of commas. Go back and look.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3904125&postcount=238

Anyone knows that moving or introducing commas into a sentence can drastically change its meaning.

First of all, there has been some bad interpretations by both Joysong and Lux because they only referenced the English GIRM which is not completely universal. Second, the GIRM in Italian and Spanish leaves it up to the Episcopal Conferences to decide if they are going to adopt standing.

Furthermore, Lux made a very erroneous statement when he noted that standing was the posture for the Eucharistic Prayer without checking his sources. He only went by what he saw when he was in a foreign country. He even went so far as to see that kneeling for the EP wasn’t even in the GIRM. My post, in three different languages, proved him wrong.

Furthermore, I sense a strong air of dissent regarding the issue of kneeling, even after the Vatican has defended it on several occasions. Oddly enough, the same poster you are defending believed that the GIRM superceded the letter from the CDWDS because it was written a year after the English version of the GIRM was published. That interpretation was totally off-base.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Therefore, those who maintain that I am merely expressing my opinion have forgotten that they are doing the same thing themselves. Furthermore, the crux of the discussion is the fact that the Episcopal Conferences have the option of making “standing” the norm; however, they cannot make someone not kneel to receive Holy Communion. In other words, they cannot overrule what Rome has vehemently defended.

B, please try to follow, and respond to what is being asked, and not try to sidestep. You claim that there is a universal norm for kneeling. This was refuted, and you have not given any valid documentation for your interpretation. You are correct that no one can be denied HC for kneeling, but not for the reasons you claim. From what I was told, the main reason for attempting to disuade the single communicant is the tripping issue, since provisions can be made if there is a significant number who wish to receive kneeling, Remember this article which Robert posted

There might be occasions when charity requires that a Catholic sacrifice his personal devotion for the good of others, and so receive standing, but in general it is no great problem.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

B:

Furthermore, I sense a strong air of dissent regarding the issue of kneeling, even after the Vatican has defended it on several occasions. Oddly enough, the same poster you are defending believed that the GIRM superceded the letter from the CDWDS because it was written a year after the English version of the GIRM was published. That interpretation was totally off-base.

Again, it is not kneeling , it is the attitude of those who feel they are acting reasonable when they choose to adopt a position contrary to the rest of the congregation, in the middle of the procession. We have 2 lines coming up the middle aisle, and it is quite close as it is, there is no room to kneel. We do have one lady who attends daily Mass, and positions herself at the end of the line, and genuflects, but she realizes this would be problematic at a crowded Sunday Mass. The Pastor has reminded her that a bow is the norm, so she does bow at his Masses. As I said numerous times, I have no problem with kneeling, if there are provisions made.

Oddly enough, the same poster you are defending believed that the GIRM superceded the letter from the CDWDS because it was written a year after the English version of the GIRM was published. That interpretation was totally off-base

Sorry, it looks like the norms isn’t the only thing about which you are confused—you have posters mixed up too. You have not refuted any of joysongs posts which showed your interpretations of the GIRM are in error. The GIRM is quite clear about what is to be included, but again I am not disputing the letters, in principle, but your claim of the universal norm, which you have yet to authenticate.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

ps
b:

GIRM superceded the letter from the CDWDS because it was written a year after the English version of the GIRM was published. That interpretation was totally off-base.

Your statement is a little confusing, since according to English syntax norms, by its position, the “it” would be referring to the letter, when it actually does refer to the GIRM. (or do you have the dates confused?—the letter was written BEFORE the GIRM was appproved) Does it make sense that the GIRM would be approved with a violation of a universal norm? Again the GIRM is very clear about what must be included. AS I said, I am waiting for any word of action being taken. This is clearly an issue in the grey area.

 

[Brendan]

I think I will trust the professors at the seminary over you. They do teach liturgy there, and I KNOW their credentials.

That is where I learned about the Universal Norm, In one of my Liturgy classes at the Seminary.

We Diaconal canidates take the same classes as the priestly canidates, and from the same professors as they do.

I take my classes at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. Where does your seminarian take his classes at. It would be interesting to have his professors talk to mine

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Yes, that is interesting. Sorry I can’t divulge any info about someone else.

Congratulations on your studies. Are you on your way to priestly ordination, or the permanent deaconate?

Also are these the norms for the TLM or the NO? 1970 or 2000? This is also the reason for much confusion.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

PS How do you respond to Joysong’s post #238?