Vatican: Receiving Eucharist kneeling will be norm at papal liturgies

[Brendan]

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.

Here are several letters from the authoritative diacastery

ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling_for_communion.htm

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.

Note that one of the letters clearly states who the authority is for the interpretation of the GIRM.

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. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

This is consistant with Canon 16 p.2, which notes that an offical interpretation has the force of law.

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?

No, it is not in error, but many are denying that official interpretation of the GIRM.

 

[fix]

Fix, I don’t believe MHalsey was saying that at all.

Good.

Here is my point in all this mess. I think standing out of humble submission to legitimate authority is a good and meritorious act. Obeying in such a situation does not place one in moral danger. However, it also seems those who want to kneel are not defying their priest or bishop as Rome has said it is licit to kneel.

What I find troubling is the notion that folks who kneel are objectively wrong or acting out of prideful motives.

If the Church has said they may kneel, without fault, why should I think otherwise?

 

[Joysong]

Fix:

It appears you may be confusing things more than clarifying. Let’s start with the link you provided:

Quote 1. 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…

If you want to quote from the link I provided, you need to apply the entire context rather than stop short in the above quote. The rest of the paragraph sheds more light:

The following was issued in response to a dubium of Cardinal George of Chicago. The reference is to the general posture norm, GIRM 43, and whether communicants can kneel down for their thanksgiving after Communion when everyone else is standing, however, it is clear that the mind (mens) of the Holy See on the role of posture is expressed. The general principle enunciated in the response would therefore also apply to GIRM 160, and the issues of kneeling to receive and genuflecting before receiving.

Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?

Responsum: Negative, et ad mentem. The mens is that that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of the Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

And your second quote is similar, speaking about the right to kneel for communion. The first referenced quote addressed the right to kneel when people return to their pews; because as you know, the norm is to stand until the end of Mass, except in the USA.

Then:

Quote 2. 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."

Why this is again being brought to the fore is a mystery because I have never disagreed with the principle. I fail to understand why my repeated agreement with this is totally ignored.

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?

I would suggest you ask them, since I am not the one who drafted it. However, since the wording is contained within the main body of the GIRM under article #42, rather than in the adaptation #390, I would believe yes that it pertains to anyone in the Latin rite. Whenever we log on to the Vatican website and request the document this is what comes up:
GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL

INSTITUTIO GENERALIS MISSALIS ROMANI

Including Adaptations for the Dioceses of the United States of America

If there is another version, I would not know, for nothing else appeared in the search.

May I say in conclusion that if anyone wants to know Church teaching, you need only read the documents, and if there is a problem with understanding, contact the bishop of the diocese, rather than take the word of a poster. The documents have been fully presented in this thread. One has only to make up his own mind and bear the consequences of his/her decision.

This argument has been literally piecemealed to death, and for what purpose? I will do what my bishop has instructed. It is not within my formation of conscience to use a private inclination and overule him. As long as I receive Jesus, it matters little to me whether I am in a hospital bed receiving from an EMHC, or in church on a kneeler or standing. The entire reception, to be worthy, depends upon the interior disposition.

 

[Joysong]

Brendan,

You have simply presented the same argument that I have consistently agreed with … that nobody should be refused communion, etc. What remains to be answered is B’gal’s allegation that the GIRM’s universal norm was stated to be solely in the kneeling posture, whereas every GIRM document I read from the late 60’s until now, has consistently said “kneel OR stand.” You are only commenting on the abuse of one facet of both postures, a facet which nobody here has disagreed with.

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 s. 1),

 

[fix]

If you want to quote from the link I provided, you need to apply the entire context rather than stop short in the above quote. The rest of the paragraph sheds more light:

I used what I did to point out the “mind of the Church” is known through legitimate authority that is the dicastery in this case.

And your second quote is similar, speaking about the right to kneel for communion. The first referenced quote addressed the right to kneel when people return to their pews; because as you know, the norm is to stand until the end of Mass, except in the USA.

The link shows that kneeling for communion is licit and not disobedient.

I would suggest you ask them, since I am not the one who drafted it.

Well, we have the authoritative communication from Rome.

May I say in conclusion that if anyone wants to know Church teaching, you need only read the documents, and if there is a problem with understanding, contact the bishop of the diocese, rather than take the word of a poster. The documents have been fully presented in this thread. One has only to make up his own mind and bear the consequences of his/her decision.

That we can agree.

I will do what my bishop has instructed. It is not within my formation of conscience to use a private inclination and overule him.

If your inclination is something other than standing or kneeling then you would have a point.

As I said obeying the bishop is good. Why on earth would anyone find some soul kneeling to receive our Lord is acting badly. That is my question.

 

[MHalsey]

As I said obeying the bishop is good. Why on earth would anyone find some soul kneeling to receive our Lord is acting badly. That is my question.

As I’ve just been told, following my bishop makes me a pawn. Of course, to prove this, WH would have to prove my bishop was actually being disobedient to Rome.

---

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.

These are the kinds of uncharitable comments that do nothing to foster unity in our Church.

 

[benedictgal]

The problem is that neither Joysong nor Lux seem to know what an adaptation is, let alone what a universal norm is. Joysong seems to think that the U.S. adaptation can trump whatever the universal norm for receiving Holy Communion is. That is wrong.

The problem is that there is strong resistance among many a folk in this thread to the actions that the Holy Father has taken regarding the reform of the reform. In fact, if you were to read the Holy Father’s homily that he preached for the Solemnity of Corpus Christ, you will find, as Welking Home has pointed out, solid grounds for why he is moving in the direction he has chosen.

We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament (the host) because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the one true God’.

I am convinced of the importance of giving the host once again to the faithful directly in the mouth without them touching it’ and 'the return of kneeling during Communion as a sign of respect.

For those who maintain that receiving Communion in the manner advocated by the Holy Father will somehow “slow” down the procession, I would like to see them post something concrete and authoritative to back up their faulty reasoning.

The fact of the matter is that Rome has maintained that the posture for receiving Holy Communion, kneeling and on the tongue, is not to be frowned upon, since this is the universal norm. Standing is legitimate. No one is arguing that.

 

[Joysong]

The fact of the matter is that Rome has maintained that the posture for receiving Holy Communion, kneeling and on the tongue, is not to be frowned upon, since this is the universal norm.

Interesting, B’gal. Still no source documents for my two questions, and instead, further allegations in opposition to the GIRM that you are more right than what the document really states. As I thought, you are unable to provide the source and bluffed your way with a sidetrack that completely skirts the issue, yet again.

The problem is that there is strong resistance among many a folk in this thread to the actions that the Holy Father has taken regarding the reform of the reform. In fact, if you were to read the Holy Father’s homily that he preached for the Solemnity of Corpus Christ, you will find, as Welking Home has pointed out, solid grounds for why he is moving in the direction he has chosen.

Not a single person has said a word about resisting the Holy Father’s actions. I suppose you needed to throw something in the works as a diversion from the question which you are unable to answer.

Well, since you have failed time and again to provide a source to substantiate your allegation that the GIRM’s “universal norm” states only kneeling, I offer not only the GIRM with US adaptations, but the original in latin, and they both say the same thing as I have corrected you, that the wording is “kneeling OR standing.”

1. Sacerdos deinde accipit patenam vel pyxidem, et accedit ad communicandos, qui de more processionaliter approprinquant.

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

And you want the readers of CAF to believe you are never wrong, when all you do is cut and paste, using personal deviations in actual interpretation. I don’t fool that easily, and I have proved my statements, which you have failed to do. One of us is obviously in error. It’s rather easy, isn’t it? … to say Lux and Joysong don’t understand? Yet that doesn’t make it true because you say so.

 

[Joysong]

I believe enough has been said and demonstrated with proofs, so I see no further need for me to remain in this thread, for it will surely be more of the same.

 

[benedictgal]

Interesting, B’gal. Still no source documents for my two questions, and instead, further allegations in opposition to the GIRM that you are more right than what the document really states. As I thought, you are unable to provide the source and bluffed your way with a sidetrack that completely skirts the issue, yet again.

Not a single person has said a word about resisting the Holy Father’s actions. I suppose you needed to throw something in the works as a diversion from the question which you are unable to answer.

Well, since you have failed time and again to provide a source to substantiate your allegation that the GIRM’s “universal norm” states only kneeling, I offer not only the GIRM with US adaptations, but the original in latin, and they both say the same thing as I have corrected you, that the wording is “kneeling OR standing.”

And you want the readers of CAF to believe you are never wrong, when all you do is cut and paste, using personal deviations in actual interpretation. I don’t fool that easily, and I have proved my statements, which you have failed to do. One of us is obviously in error. It’s rather easy, isn’t it? … to say Lux and Joysong don’t understand? Yet that doesn’t make it true because you say so.

Joysong, what you posted earlier referred to the posture after one receives Holy Communion. That has no bearing on the issue at hand, nor were Lux’s comments about standing during the EP (which, by the way is incorrect).

Furthermore, did you not disregard what the former Cardinal Ratzinger had noted in the letter I quoted form the CDWDS? Are you now changing your mind simply because he is the Holy Father?

Furthermore, I never said that standing was wrong. If you want to stand or kneel, that is your choice. Both are legitimate and both have their mention in the GIRM. What the Holy Father is doing is nothing “new”. He is simply employing a norm that is universal and that is most appropriate.

 

[MHalsey]

The problem is that neither Joysong nor Lux seem to know what an adaptation is, let alone what a universal norm is. Joysong seems to think that the U.S. adaptation can trump whatever the universal norm for receiving Holy Communion is. That is wrong.

The problem is that there is strong resistance among many a folk in this thread to the actions that the Holy Father has taken regarding the reform of the reform. In fact, if you were to read the Holy Father’s homily that he preached for the Solemnity of Corpus Christ, you will find, as Welking Home has pointed out, solid grounds for why he is moving in the direction he has chosen.

I have not read one post on this thread that claims what the Holy Father is doing is wrong. Or that we should resist.

Has the Pope come out and demanded this action everywhere? the article in the OP indicates his actions only refer to Papal Masses. The Holy Father indicated a preference for distributing communion this way, but that in itself does not carry the force of law. And in fact, he has indicated that this should not affect the other valid forms of receiving Communion.

Incidentally, this whole discussion revolves around a discipline; that being, how we receive communion. This has nothing to do with faith and morals. Therefore, even though no one here has, one can disagree with the Pope on this issue.

For those who maintain that receiving Communion in the manner advocated by the Holy Father will somehow “slow” down the procession, I would like to see them post something concrete and authoritative to back up their faulty reasoning.

This is a matter of opinion.

The fact of the matter is that Rome has maintained that the posture for receiving Holy Communion, kneeling and on the tongue, is not to be frowned upon, since this is the universal norm. Standing is legitimate. No one is arguing that.

And no one is arguing that kneeling should be frowned upon.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal,

            well I'm also waiting for you to post the source which states that ONLY kneeling , when receiving Holy Communion is the norm.

Jim

 

[Walking_Home]

As I’ve just been told, following my bishop makes me a pawn. Of course, to prove this, WH would have to prove my bishop was actually being disobedient to Rome.

These are the kinds of uncharitable comments that do nothing to foster unity in our Church.

Quote=MHalsey
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.

---

Pledging obedience to a disobedient bishop --does make one a pawn. Those were your words above --were they not. At times the truth hurts. It is very difficult to accept-- people have been used and are being used by some of our bishops. Whether you accept it or not — this is what some bishops have made of their congregations —pawns.

 

[MHalsey]

---

Pledging obedience to a disobedient bishop --does make one a pawn. Those were your words above --were they not. At times the truth hurts. It is very difficult to accept-- people have been used and are being used by some of our bishops. Whether you accept it or not — this is what some bishops have made of their congregations —pawns.

Like I said, prove it.

If the bishop in my diocese directs that the parishes should stand for communion based on the GIRM, that is what we should do.

NOTE - This does not mean that anyone should be denied if they choose to kneel.

Indicating his preference for standing to receive communion for his diocese is not disobedience to Rome.

Denying someone communion for kneeling IS.

Again, prove to me how my bishop is being disobedient. You don’t even know him. You don’t know what diocese I live in.

Your arrogance is very telling. The truth really does hurt.

 

[Walking_Home]

Like I said, prove it.

**If the bishop in my diocese directs that the parishes should stand for communion based on the GIRM, that is what we should do. **

NOTE - This does not mean that anyone should be denied if they choose to kneel.

Indicating his preference for standing to receive communion for his diocese is not disobedience to Rome.

Denying someone communion for kneeling IS.

Again, prove to me how my bishop is being disobedient. You don’t even know him. You don’t know what diocese I live in.

Your arrogance is very telling. The truth really does hurt.

---

If a bishops preference for standing —leads him to suppress kneeling --yes — the bishop is disobedient to Rome.

So by you — if a bishop (based on the GIRM) says stand --would you consider someone who kneels for communion disobedient.

My response was to your statement – not whether your bishop is suppressing kneeling or not.

 

[william51]

I agree totallythat this should be changed and we should be on our knees if not flat on our faces in view of the eucharist. I dont know why this hasnt been changed before with vaticanII . When i am invited to eat at the Lords table whether it be everyday or once a week it is the only thing that makes me want to go to the next day.i am in total favor of showing to god my devotion by kneeling to accept the eucharist…yes!!!

 

[MHalsey]

---

If a bishops preference for standing —leads him to suppress kneeling --yes — the bishop is disobedient to Rome.

Yeah, so. I never said it wasn’t. But that in itself does not justify disobedience to him.

So by you — if a bishop (based on the GIRM) says stand --would you consider someone who kneels for communion disobedient.

That depends on the disposition of the parishioner. If the communicant feels that the only way they can be reverent is to kneel, that’s fine. But if a communicant decides he wants to receive on his knees to defy the bishop, because he thinks the bishop is being disobedient by not following the Holy Father’s lead, then that is.

Note: it’s still their right, but as in all things, inner disposition matters a great deal.

My response was to your statement – not whether your bishop is suppressing kneeling or not.

That’s right, your response was to automatically claim I was following a disobedient bishop and call me a pawn.

He has not “suppressed” kneeling, so like I said, you cannot prove disobedience. On the other hand, if he had, that is “personal” disobedience. I gather from your post you believe that if a bishop does deny someone their right, then we should openly defy him in all things, because he is being disobedient.

So, as has been said many, many times on this thread, a bishop who prefers his parishes follow the norm of standing for communion is NOT being disobedient to Rome. If Rome gives him the option, which it has, then he is exercising the authority given to him with the caveat that he cannot deny someone who wishes to kneel.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

---

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.

Again, you are only giving a personal opinion, while adding nothing to the discussion except nastiness

(you stilll have not given any substantiation to you false accusations directed at me)

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
If a bishops preference for standing —leads him to suppress kneeling --yes — the bishop is disobedient to Rome.

Yeah, so. I never said it wasn’t. But that in itself does not justify disobedience to him.

Quote: Walking_Home
So by you — if a bishop (based on the GIRM) says stand --would you consider someone who kneels for communion disobedient.

That depends on the disposition of the parishioner. If the communicant feels that the only way they can be reverent is to kneel, that’s fine. But if a communicant decides he wants to receive on his knees to defy the bishop, because he thinks the bishop is being disobedient by not following the Holy Father’s lead, then that is.

Note: it’s still their right, but as in all things, inner disposition matters a great deal.

That’s right, your response was to automatically claim I was following a disobedient bishop and call me a pawn.

He has not “suppressed” kneeling, so like I said, you cannot prove disobedience. On the other hand, if he had, that is “personal” disobedience. I gather from your post you believe that if a bishop does deny someone their right, then we should openly defy him in all things, because he is being disobedient.

So, as has been said many, many times on this thread, a bishop who prefers his parishes follow the norm of standing for communion is NOT being disobedient to Rome. If Rome gives him the option, which it has, then he is exercising the authority given to him with the caveat that he cannot deny someone who wishes to kneel.

---

What you promote – is for the people to become pawns.

A bishop can exercise his authority to a point —he does not have the authority to abrogate/suppress kneeling in his diocese. If a bishop denies the right to kneel --it will only put his disobedience out front — for all to see. In this situation Rome needs to be made aware of the bishop’s actions.

Rome has been clear on this matter. Do you want to continue down a path which seems to be in search of obstacles to curtail the full freedom people have to kneel.

Card. Arinze --Prefect for the Congregation of 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 give them full freedom **and those who want to receive on the tongue you leave them in peace not in peaces.”

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

 

[Walking_Home]

Again, you are only giving a personal opinion, while adding nothing to the discussion except nastiness

(you stilll have not given any substantiation to you false accusations directed at me)

---

Bah.