Vatican: Receiving Eucharist kneeling will be norm at papal liturgies

[Michael_Neal]

thanks for the debate, I have decided I am going to take communion kneeling for now on since that is the direction the Pope is going in and it is what I feel is proper reverence.

 

[rlg94086]

Oh yes, the tabernacle is empty I might suppose during communion but I still look upon it as the ‘house’ of the lord whether empty or not.

I again agree that his presence is in the chalice as it is in the hand of the priest as we receive. I do bow before receiving the host and don’t when I pass the chalice of His blood or even the tabernacle. Maybe I should.

Lynn-D

So, is making the sign of the cross towards the tabernacle directly after receiving (as I have seen some people do) “proper” form? Is it optional? I don’t mean to sound overly scrupulous, but as a convert sometimes I did not receive proper instruction on these things. Once I learn that I am doing something incorrectly and/or find out the reason for certain pious practices, I do my best to change.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post​

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…ic-arinze.html

Are you deliberately trying to insult? Or are you just not reading my posts? I have already said a bishop has no right to deny someone their right to kneel. **However, that denial does NOT negate his authority to declare his preference for standing in his diocese. **

As someone else pointed out regarding my post:

Quote:
Here is my point in all this mess. I think standing out of humble submission to legitimate authority is a good and meritorious act.

Thanks to Fix for that.

Let me ask you, do you openly question all that your bishop says or does in your diocese? After all, you say following my bishop makes me a pawn, therefore you must not. However, I must remind you, your bishop is an Apostle of the Church. He is your shepherd who is there to guide you. By openly questioning him, and “going above his head” to Rome, on everything puts you in a position of disobedience. My following his legitimate authority does not make me a pawn.

---

How is it an insult to point out the hierarchal/authoritative nature of the Church. Obedience to ones priest/bishop should at the same time reflect obedience to Rome. When our obedience to Rome is cut off by someones act — the hierarchal/authoritative nature of the Church is undermined. Rome allowed standing with the condition that those who wished to kneel be given full freedom. What happens when a bishop reneges on the condition that gave him the opportunity for his preference to begin with.

Also – you do not do Fix justice by using only part of what he/she
said.

Quote=Fix
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?**

Now as to your accusation that questioning and “going above his head” to Rome, on everything puts you in a position of disobedience. I will let the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments answer you.

adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum
Prot. n. 1322/02/L
Rome, 1 July 2002

This Congregation for Divine Worship gratefully acknowledges receipt of your letter, regarding an announced policy of denial of Holy Communion to those who kneel to receive it at a certain church.

It is troubling that you seem to express some reservations about both the propriety and the usefulness of addressing the Holy See regarding this matter. Canon 212 ¶2 of the Code of Canon Law states that “Christ’s faithful are totally free to make known their needs, especially their spiritual ones, and their desire: to the Pastor of the Church”. The canon then continues in ¶3: “According to their own knowledge competence and position, they have the right, and indeed sometimes the duty, to present to the sacred Pastor; their opinions regarding those things that pertain to the good of the Church”… Accordingly, in consideration of the nature of the problem and the relative likelihood that it might or might not be resolved on the local level, every member of the faithful has the right of recourse to the Roman Pontiff either personally or by means of the Dicasteries or Tribunals of the Roman Curia.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Monsignor Mario Marini
Undersecretary

 

[william51]

hello-
If i was in front of our blessed father in rome i would be on my knees wheter it was for the eucharist or not.

 

[rlg94086]

hello-
If i was in front of our blessed father in rome i would be on my knees wheter it was for the eucharist or not.

Interesting point, so I’m assuming you kneel whenever you receive the Eucharist. If you believe in that level of devotion to the pope, then it is only fitting and proper that you would always receive the Eucharist kneeling, regardless of the person presenting Him, correct?

 

[MHalsey]

---

How is it an insult to point out the hierarchal/authoritative nature of the Church. Obedience to ones priest/bishop should at the same time reflect obedience to Rome. When our obedience to Rome is cut off by someones act — the hierarchal/authoritative nature of the Church is undermined. Rome allowed standing with the
condition that those who wished to kneel be given full freedom. What happens when a bishop reneges on the condition that gave him the opportunity for his preference to begin with.

Why do you continually misinterpret my posts? Tell me where in my posts I am being disobedient to Rome by following my bishop.

Also – you do not do Fix justice by using only part of what he/she
said.

The second part of Fix’s post addressed things I never said. By your quoting them you are accusing me of that. Go back and check all my posts. Please find for me where I said anyone should be denied communion for kneeling.

Now as to your accusation that questioning and “going above his head” to Rome, on everything puts you in a position of disobedience. I will let the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments answer you.

adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

Again, do you go to Rome for everything? Do you research every document, poring over all the Canon Law to make sure your bishop is not doing anything that would be out of line with Rome? Good luck. You must be one of the greatest and most educated theologians on the planet.

I, for one, don’t have the time, and I suspect most Catholics don’t either. Unless I notice something totally out of the ordinary, I trust he knows what he’s doing.

And I will state again, observing the particular norm in the diocese based on the bishop’s request is NOT disobedience to Rome and does not make me a pawn.

 

[ElizabethPH]

Oh yes, the tabernacle is empty I might suppose during communion but I still look upon it as the ‘house’ of the lord whether empty or not.

I again agree that his presence is in the chalice as it is in the hand of the priest as we receive. I do bow before receiving the host and don’t when I pass the chalice of His blood or even the tabernacle. Maybe I should.

Lynn-D

When I attend Latin Mass and there is a rail or we use the front pews for a rail; after receiving I remain kneeling while I cross not when I walk back to the pew. I think it is the same reverence shown when you step aside and make the sign of the cross in the OF Mass. I was taught this by the parish priest at the pulpit. I don’t know if it’s wriitten in stone someplace that you have to do this or not. Just an observation. I know the tabernacle is empty but the reverence is the point here. Crossing while walking back to the pew is like an afterthought. But thats perfectly fine!!!

 

[Walking_Home]

Why do you continually misinterpret my posts? Tell me where in my posts I am being disobedient to Rome by following my bishop.

The second part of Fix’s post addressed things I never said. By your quoting them you are accusing me of that. Go back and check all my posts. Please find for me where I said anyone should be denied communion for kneeling.

Again, do you go to Rome for everything? Do you research every document, poring over all the Canon Law to make sure your bishop is not doing anything that would be out of line with Rome? Good luck. You must be one of the greatest and most educated theologians on the planet.

I, for one, don’t have the time, and I suspect most Catholics don’t either. Unless I notice something totally out of the ordinary, I trust he knows what he’s doing.

And I will state again, observing the particular norm in the diocese based on the bishop’s request is NOT disobedience to Rome and does not make me a pawn.

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

---

It is your words—“we should”. So if a bishop directs his parishes to stand --“that is what we should do”. This places the ones who kneel – outside of what should be done. The full freedom the Church gives to kneel – does not quite fit with your —“we should”.
This discussion is not centered only on the aspect of denying communion to one who kneels —but on the act of kneeling itself. Whether some view the act of kneeling as somehow illicit.

I included Fix’s whole post so that there would be a more clear context of what she said. I see you were not exactly happy with that.

Now as to addressing Rome — Frankly–Why would someone feel bothered and/or threatened --with the prospect that Rome is made aware of what happens in our parishes/diocese. As was made clear by the response from the CDWDS --we should not fear addressing ourselves to Rome. In other documents we are also instructed to approach Rome if need be. The following is from RS-2204.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

1. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

 

[MHalsey]

---

It is your words—“we should”. So if a bishop directs his parishes to stand --“that is what we should do”. This places the ones who kneel – outside of what should be done. The full freedom the Church gives to kneel – does not quite fit with your —“we should”.
This discussion is not centered only on the aspect of denying communion to one who kneels —but on the act of kneeling itself. Whether some view the act of kneeling as somehow illicit.

“We should” is my opinion. Take it or leave it. I never said it was required. I guess I could have added that my reasons are because I think it shows a sign of unity (something mentioned in the GIRM). But when someone holds this position they get accused of thinking that unity is more important than reverence.

I even said many, many post ago, if someone felt they could only show proper reverence by kneeling, I have no problem with that. But that does not mean that those who do stand are any less reverent.

I included Fix’s whole post so that there would be a more clear context of what she said. I see you were not exactly happy with that.

Fair enough.

Now as to addressing Rome — Frankly–Why would someone feel bothered and/or threatened --with the prospect that Rome is made aware of what happens in our parishes/diocese. As was made clear by the response from the CDWDS --we should not fear addressing ourselves to Rome. In other documents we are also instructed to approach Rome if need be. The following is from RS-2204.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

1. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

I don’t have a problem with this. If I saw something out of the ordinary that might be considered abuse, I would investigate it and possibly report it. But it’s not my job to police the diocese in search of every abuse.

 

[rlg94086]

When I attend Latin Mass and there is a rail or we use the front pews for a rail; after receiving I remain kneeling while I cross not when I walk back to the pew. I think it is the same reverence shown when you step aside and make the sign of the cross in the OF Mass. I was taught this by the parish priest at the pulpit. I don’t know if it’s wriitten in stone someplace that you have to do this or not. Just an observation. I know the tabernacle is empty but the reverence is the point here. Crossing while walking back to the pew is like an afterthought. But thats perfectly fine!!!

Hi ElizabethPH,

I think I found some answers. Here is a Q&A from Zenit regarding posture after communion. zenit.org/article-14363?l=english

The answers are from Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

First the question:

A religious from Boston, Massachusetts, asks: “Some people make the sign of the cross after receiving holy Communion. Some even go to the side and genuflect. Why is this? This person was taught that the sign of the cross and genuflection after Communion is unnecessary because the Lord is in the person already. But what about when we receive the Lord in two species: We make a sign of reverence (a deep bow) before receiving his Body, and again a deep bow before receiving his Blood. Is the second bow all right/proper to do even though the Lord is already within the person? At that point the Lord is before the person and within the person, or rather the person is in God.”

The answer to the sign of the cross after receiving:

Here we are dealing with the meaning of signs, and certain signs are not strictly necessary after receiving Communion.

With respect to the first part of the question, while there is no real need to make a sign of the cross after receiving holy Communion, many people do so for several reasons. For some, making a sign of the cross is a spiritual reflex action for any moment of prayer. For others, it represents an act of faith in the mystery they have received.

Whatever the cause, I personally see no reason to bother people about such a simple gesture, even if it does not form part of the liturgy at this moment.

Regarding those who genuflect after having received Communion, I really do not know why people would do so and there is no theological or liturgical reason to support it. Some people habitually genuflect whenever they pass the center of the church and perhaps continue doing it without thinking when they receive Communion.

For such cases, some personal catechesis on the part of the pastor can probably do more good than making a fuss about it in public.

Regarding reverence toward the Blood of Christ:

Another case is the second part of the question regarding the sign of reverence toward the Blood of Christ even though one has already received Communion under the species of bread.

This second sign of reverence is required by liturgical norms for all the faithful and likewise for concelebrating priests who genuflect before partaking of the chalice even though they have already consumed the Host.

The meaning of this sign does not deny the presence of Christ in the person who has received the Host (although as we mentioned in an earlier reply the duration of the physical presence in the communicant is an open question; see follow-ups of June 21 and July 5). Rather, the sign is an act of faith and adoration in Christ really and fully present under the species of wine.

 

[rlg94086]

FWIW in the discussion of kneeling, the same article from Zenit has some answers from Father McNamara:

An English reader asked about the Communion procession: “Where the practice has been introduced of the faithful queuing to receive holy Communion standing, do individuals have a right to receive the Host kneeling down or is the priest entitled to insist that they stand? If the faithful are permitted to receive in a kneeling position, is each individual who wishes to do so entitled to kneel at the altar rail, or must he do so in the queue as his turn arrives?”

There are two question involved. The short answer to the question if the individual may choose to receive kneeling is yes. He may do so and may not be refused Communion for adopting this posture. 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.

The present liturgy sees the faithful as coming to receive Communion in processional form (not quite a queue). And so the proper thing to do would be to await one’s turn if that is the only way foreseen for the distribution of Communion.

However, a pastor may freely offer the faithful the possibility of using the Communion rail once they have arrived at the entrance to the presbytery, if he so desires.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Thanks Robert,

This is what I have been saying forever.

Lux

 

[rlg94086]

Thanks Robert,

This is what I have been saying forever.

Lux

:tiphat:

Honestly, I haven’t followed every tit-for-tat on the thread. To me, it is pretty simple. When receiving the Eucharist at a papal Mass, kneeling is the norm. Since Bishops are able to set a norm for their diocese, it doesn’t seem unusual for the Pope to set a norm for the papal Mass.

Regardless of the norm in a diocese or parish, people may receive kneeling or standing.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

:tiphat:

Regardless of the norm in a diocese or parish, people may receive kneeling or standing.

Agreed. I am certainly not anti-kneeling, but do understand community worship. The point was beautifully covered in the article you posted.

Thanks again,

Lux

 

[Lynn-D]

When I attend Latin Mass and there is a rail or we use the front pews for a rail; after receiving I remain kneeling while I cross not when I walk back to the pew. I think it is the same reverence shown when you step aside and make the sign of the cross in the OF Mass. I was taught this by the parish priest at the pulpit. I don’t know if it’s wriitten in stone someplace that you have to do this or not. Just an observation. I know the tabernacle is empty but the reverence is the point here. Crossing while walking back to the pew is like an afterthought. But thats perfectly fine!!!

I am reluctant to give out my age but a little hint might be to state that as a child in Catholic grammar school we were taught to make the sign of the cross when passing outside the church seeing as we then were also passing in front of the tabernacle. No way to tell if it was containing the Eucharist or not but we did it out of respect. I wonder how many do that today?

I make the sign of the cross immediately after receiving communion and also turn my head toward the tabernacle at about the same time as I return back to my pew. Might be just how I was taught or just an instinct but I feel good doing it that way.

Lynn-D

 

[rlg94086]

I am reluctant to give out my age but a little hint might be to state that as a child in Catholic grammar school we were taught to make the sign of the cross when passing outside the church seeing as we then were also passing in front of the tabernacle. No way to tell if it was containing the Eucharist or not but we did it out of respect. I wonder how many do that today?

I make the sign of the cross immediately after receiving communion and also turn my head toward the tabernacle at about the same time as I return back to my pew. Might be just how I was taught or just an instinct but I feel good doing it that way.

Lynn-D

I do. I’m a convert, so I didn’t grow up with it but I also don’t remember it being taught in RCIA. When I first heard about crossing yourself as you pass a Catholic Church because Jesus is present in the tabernacle, it made complete sense to me.

At our parish, we genuflect (some bow) when we cross in front of the tabernacle (which is at the center/back of the sanctuary). Again, it makes perfect sense. I wasn’t disparaging the idea of genuflecting/making the sign of the cross in front of an empty tabernacle…just asking.

 

[Holly3278]

This is awesome! Receiving the Eucharist kneeling seems to be so much more reverent than receiving it in the hand or even on the tongue. I am not saying that people who receive in the hand or on the tongue are less reverent. Just that it seems to be more reverent to me to kneel and receive the most holy Eucharist.

 

[rlg94086]

This is awesome! Receiving the Eucharist kneeling seems to be so much more reverent than receiving it in the hand or even on the tongue. I am not saying that people who receive in the hand or on the tongue are less reverent. Just that it seems to be more reverent to me to kneel and receive the most holy Eucharist.

Not to quibble Holly, but someone who receives kneeling is still receiving it in the hand or on the tongue (most probably the tongue though). There really isn’t another choice that I know of.

 

[Lynn-D]

At our parish, we genuflect (some bow) when we cross in front of the tabernacle (which is at the center/back of the sanctuary). Again, it makes perfect sense. I wasn’t disparaging the idea of genuflecting/making the sign of the cross in front of an empty tabernacle…just asking.

Oh please do not think I might have thought yours was anything more than a question. I did take it that way.

I have bad knees and cannot kneel for any length of time. But I would welcome a return to receiving communion at the altar rail on my knees. And I suppose if that was to be the policy it might also be allowed for many like myself to still receive standing if that might be necessary to do on that particular day.

Lynn-D

 

[Chellow]

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