Vatican: Receiving Eucharist kneeling will be norm at papal liturgies

[benedictgal]

You must have missed those posts. I’m not reposting. it is obvious that you have no knowledge of the GIRM or any desire to learn it.

Nothing was “cleared up” Many rude people jumped all over me with their misinformation on a Communion procession.

First of all, never make assumptions as to what I know and what I don’t know. I am very familiar with the GIRM, as well as Redemptionis Sacramentum, Liturgicam Authenticam and most of the recent documents issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship. I cite them most of the time in my posts.

The GIRM for the United States does contain the adaptation for receiving Holy Communion standing and in the hand. But, what you fail to realize is that it is just that, an adaptation. The universal norm established by the Church remains to receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue.

Furthermore, the USCCB, while indicating that Holy Communion should not be refused to a communicant who is kneeling and wants to receive on the tongue, some sort of pastoral catechesis should be given to the person. That is not necessarily correct because, again, kneeling is the norm, standing is the option.

Furthermore, JimOCDS seems to think that what the Holy Father is doing is “rolling back the clock”. That is far from the case. He is merely re-inforcing what is the norm, as opposed to what is the adapation. In fact, when the Holy Father went to southern Italy, he also employed the use of the kneeler for the reception of Holy Communion. The Holy Father, by virtue of his Petrine ministry, enjoys universal jursidiction, meaning, he can dictate how he wants to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and how he wants to distribute Holy Communion.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

This topic had morphed, but obviously you didn’t notice this.

Hopefully this will be my last post. I love the Mass, and previously would have voted “yes” to a survey if the possibly of a TLM ever comes to be, but after seeing the attitude of those who favor that style of worship, I would definitely vote “no”, and I’m sure many others agree.

Lux

 

[Joysong]

The wagons are circling, and the same indians are commonly in the makeup.

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.

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. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Thanks, Joysong,

You have summed it up beautifully.

The true colors were shown in this statement.
B:

Furthermore, the USCCB, while indicating that Holy Communion should not be refused to a communicant who is kneeling and wants to receive on the tongue, some sort of pastoral catechesis should be given to the person.** That is not necessarily correct because, again, kneeling is the norm, standing is the option.**

Thanks again,
Lux

 

[saylo]

All bishops must provide kneeling facilities for the Faithful to receive Holy Communion…it is their DUTY and their RESPONSIBILITY.

 

[Walking_Home]

Card. Arinze – Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

“But even if the Bishops decide that the people will receive in the hand standing as in the United States, our Congregation in Rome has said yes, provided that those who want to receive kneeling you leave them full freedom and those who want ot receive on the tongue you leave them in peace not pieces.”

the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/06/classic-arinze.html

 

[saylo]

Card. Arinze – Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

“But even if the Bishops decide that the people will receive in the hand standing as in the United States, our Congregation in Rome has said yes, **provided that those who want to receive kneeling you leave them **full freedom and those who want ot receive on the tongue you leave them in peace not pieces.”

the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/06/classic-arinze.html

Thank you. Those bishops that fail to comply are in DISOBEDIENCE and have lost credibility. They must be reported to the Vatican so that they NEVER become cardinals.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Good idea. You do the reporting, and let me know how it turns out.

ps Some are already Cardinals—what should be done about them?

Lux

 

[Walking_Home]

It is already turning out. Pope Benedict XVI is teaching by example that the universal norms of kneeling and receiving on the tongue are still in force. Card. Arinze is also setting things straight—that bishops/bishops conference never had the authority to abrogate/suppress kneeling.

We will wait to see what the Church does with the disobedient bishops—but She has already pulled the cover these bishops have hid under and shown their true face.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal;

Furthermore, JimOCDS seems to think that what the Holy Father is doing is “rolling back the clock”.

Where did I say that?

Jim

 

[Brendan]

You must have missed those posts. I’m not reposting. it is obvious that you have no knowledge of the GIRM or any desire to learn it.

Lux, you yourself admited to not knowing the difference between a Universal Norm and a Particular Norm, yet you then accuse someone of not knowing the GIRM.

Don’t you find that to be a tad hypocritical?

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

No, the sad thing is your lack of understanding of the Communion procession, and poor response when asked to be reasonable. More marks against your cause.

And Bgal thinks she can rewrite the GIRM–doesn’t exhibit much knowledge there. (and you wonder why Bishops were reluctant to allow indults when they were needed) Perhaps she can report the USCCB to the Vatican—and please let us know how that turns out.

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

The wagons are circling, and the same indians are commonly in the makeup.

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.

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.

It is apparent that there are some who have not read the letter that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments wrote regarding this issue. After all, this is the authority on all matters regarding the liturgy and sacraments.

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.

…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.

This letter dates back to July, 2002. Furthermore, what you quoted was the American adaptation, which, because it is that, an adaptation, can be rescinded at any time.

Therefore, the universal norm for receiving Holy Communion remains kneeling and on the tongue, while the adaptation calls for standing and either on the tongue or in the hand.

As I indicated earlier, the Holy Father, by virtue of his Petrine ministry, enjoys universal jurisidction and, as such, is free to scrap any adaptations in favor of the universal norm wherever he goes.

The main point of this thread is that what the Holy Father has done should be lauded. Instead, it has been the sore source for many who would rather follow the alleged spirit of Vatican II than what the documents actually stated. The Holy Father was there, at the Council. He is the authoritative voice on how the GIRM is enforced, especially at those Masses he celebrates.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

We read the letter. Do you understand Joysong’s post?

Did you read any of my posts? We are talking about being reasonable, and considering the whole community, not just what we are allowed to do, and our own preference. Pope Benedict himself said that this is his personal preference, but does not in any way lessen the other options or the authority of the Bishops.

There is a hierachy of documents, but this doesn’t concern you. That is not about your “right”

You even were arrogant enough to question the GIRM. And you expect others to believe this is about reverence & devotion.

As I said, I would have voted “yes” if the possibility of more TLM comes to be, but after meeting the group here, it will be a definite “NO” God only knows what the next demand will be.

I will pray for you,

Lux

 

[Joysong]

This letter dates back to July, 2002.

So?

The GIRM was dated 2003. The language is explicit as to intent. As I said in my post, the Church is very considerate of those who “arbitrarily” cannot comply and will permit the kneeling. I don’t have a problem with that, do you?

Furthermore, what you quoted was the American adaptation, which, because it is that, an adaptation, can be rescinded at any time.

Not a problem. IF and WHEN it is rescinded, we will obey. Until then, we will follow the current adaptations.

 

[benedictgal]

So?

The GIRM was dated 2003. The language is explicit as to intent. As I said in my post, the Church is very considerate of those who “arbitrarily” cannot comply and will permit the kneeling. I don’t have a problem with that, do you?

Not a problem. IF and WHEN it is rescinded, we will obey. Until then, we will follow the current adaptations.

Actually, the official Latin version of the GIRM is dated to 2000. What we have is the English translation which was approved for release in 2003, along with the adaptations. While the adaptations exist, you cannot overrule what the universal norm is. It is not arbitrary. The adaptation doesn’t overrule the universal norm. That is something that both of you do not understand.

Furthermore, Redemptionis Sacramentum addressed the issue of kneeling, indicating that:

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.

Redemptionis Sacramentum was published in 2004, a year after the English version of the GIRM for use in the United States was published. Again, RS notes that standing is a posture that is determined by the bishops’ conferences, but, it is not the universal norm. The universal norm is kneeling.

I would suggest that parties trying to make their point thoroughly research the matter to avoid posting material that is inaccurate and erroneous.

 

[Joysong]

Actually, the official Latin version of the GIRM is dated to 2000. What we have is the English translation which was approved for release in 2003, along with the adaptations. While the adaptations exist, you cannot overrule what the universal norm is. It is not arbitrary. The adaptation doesn’t overrule the universal norm. That is something that both of you do not understand.

If the English 2003 release is not to be followed, then why was it approved? Obviously, it is a unique document for our liturgies here, and it does hold weight. How can you say the original latin version is to be followed when adaptations were specifically developed and permitted for our nation? You are not my bishop, BG, and I have no desire to follow your directions. My diocese says stand, so I will stand until advised to the contrary. Since when did obedience go out of fashion? Since when are we not to follow our bishop’s guidance?
GIRM 2003:

1. 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);

Finally, how many more times must I say that I recognize the kneeling permission, and am not in any way disputing that? How many more times will you act as if never said this?

 

[benedictgal]

If the English 2003 release is not to be followed, then why was it approved? Obviously, it is a unique document for our liturgies here, and it does hold weight. How can you say the original latin version is to be followed when adaptations were specifically developed and permitted for our nation? You are not my bishop, BG, and I have no desire to follow your directions. My diocese says stand, so I will stand until advised to the contrary. Since when did obedience go out of fashion? Since when are we not to follow our bishop’s guidance?

Finally, how many more times must I say that I recognize the kneeling permission, and am not in any way disputing that? How many more times will you act as if never said this?

What part of the documents do you not understand, Joysong? Standing is not the universal norm. The bishops needed to get recognitio (special permission) from the Holy See for this posture. The universal norm for receiving Holy Communion remains kneeling and on the tongue.

The Vatican has repeatedly stated that communicants following the universal norm not be denied Holy Communion. Are you doubting what even the Holy Father’s MC has said when he notes that:

The practice adopted by Benedict XVI tends to emphasize the continued validity of the norm for the whole Church.

Do you not know the difference between an adaptation and the universal norm? No one is telling you that you are disobedient for adopting the posture you use. It is a valid option. However, for you to repeatedly misinterpret the posture of kneeling to the point of equating it with an adaptation rather than a norm is wrong, on all counts.

No one is challenging the validity of the GIRM with the U.S. adaptation. What I am challenging is your erroneous statements that seem to negate the ruling that the CDWDS issued simply because it came a year before the revised GIRM was released.

 

[Joysong]

What part of the documents do you not understand, Joysong? Standing is not the universal norm. The bishops needed to get recognitio (special permission) from the Holy See for this posture. The universal norm for receiving Holy Communion remains kneeling and on the tongue.

Of course I understand that! But you cannot deny fact that the recognito HAS been given to stand in the US. You act as if the approval is nonexistent. I agreed several times, and will do so one more final time before I leave this contentious debate, that YES people may kneel with concession to the approved adaptation.

Similarly the UNIVERSAL norm is to stand throughout the Eucharistic Prayer. However, in the US, the adaptation gave permission to “kneel” from the Sanctus to the Great Amen. If someone decided to pick and choose which adaptation to adopt in accord with their private preference, I would easily believe the very people who insist upon following the “universal norm” of kneeling for communion would readily balk at the “universal norm” of standing through the E.P.

When the 1969 Order of Mass became commonly used in the early 1970s, many countries of the world adopted these general norms of the GIRM without any adaptations. Thus, in many European countries, it is common for people to stand through most of the Eucharistic Prayer and only kneel for the institution narrative (if kneelers are available in the church), standing immediately afterwards to sing the memorial acclamation.

The U.S. Bishops, however, adapted the general norm to permit people to remain kneeling from the Sanctus to the concluding Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, since the posture of kneeling was such an ingrained practice in the U.S. at that time.

I can imagine the circus atmosphere if these righteous ones decided to exercise their right to follow the universal norm and stand during the E.P. while everyone else is kneeling. Reversing the logic, it is just as much a defiance to kneel while everyone else is standing for communion. It does cause one to believe that cafeteria choices are being made according to one’s feelings, rather than in obedience to the approved adaptations and intent of the GIRM towards unity.

I have exhausted my rationale for staying in this thread.

 

[benedictgal]

Of course I understand that! But you cannot deny fact that the recognito HAS been given to stand in the US. You act as if the approval is nonexistent. I agreed several times, and will do so one more final time before I leave this contentious debate, that YES people may kneel with concession to the approved adaptation.

Similarly the UNIVERSAL norm is to stand throughout the Eucharistic Prayer. However, in the US, the adaptation gave permission to “kneel” from the Sanctus to the Great Amen. If someone decided to pick and choose which adaptation to adopt in accord with their private preference, I would easily believe the very people who insist upon following the “universal norm” of kneeling for communion would readily balk at the “universal norm” of standing through the E.P.

I can imagine the circus atmosphere if these righteous ones decided to exercise their right to follow the universal norm and stand during the E.P. while everyone else is kneeling. Reversing the logic, it is just as much a defiance to kneel while everyone else is standing for communion. It does cause one to believe that cafeteria choices are being made according to one’s feelings, rather than in obedience to the approved adaptations and intent of the GIRM towards unity.

I have exhausted my rationale for staying in this thread.

Again, you are comparing apples to limes in your post. You have repeatedly equated standing for the reception of Holy Communion as the universal norm, when, it simply is an option that is allowed in the United States. The universal norm remains that the communicant receives Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue.

No one is debating the issue of kneeling during the EP. In fact, Cardinal Arinze makes this observation:

The rule from Rome would sanction where the bishops said, “in our country we want people to kneel throughout the consecration”. From our office in Rome we will support that. So it is a bit different. But sometimes during the consecration – suppose it is open-air or it rained and it is muddy – you could not kneel there. But in the normal church it is possible to kneel.

***And that’s the normal thing: to kneel during the consecration ***-- and even, as in this country, to kneel from the beginning – just before consecration – right down to just before the Our Father. And that is okay.

His words may weary you, but, he is the leading authority and not just some cardinal in the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. He is the prefect, which means, he heads the congregation and his words carry a lot more weight thatn people’s opinions and misinterpretations.