Why do we hold hands, have guitars, etc. in mass?

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David, inasmuch as I agree with you on most of what you have written, I believe that you might be wrong regarding the lumping together of kneeling for communion as a liturgical abuse, given what the Church has ruled regarding this ussue. Are you not aware that kneeling for communion is a universal norm for the Church? While the USCCB has applied for and received permission to adopt the posture of standing as the norm for the United States, kneeling to receive Holy Communion is indicated in the original Latin version of the GIRM and is found in the other languages of the GIRM as well.

Furthermore, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has made this statement, where the reception of Holy Communion is concerned:

This letter dates back to 2002 and was written by Jose A. Cardnial Medina Estevis, predecessor of Francis Cardinal Arinze, who has upheld this ruling on numeour occaions. Both prefects have acted with the authority given to them by the Holy Father.

We’re essentially saying the same thing. Reception of Communion kneeling is currently a violation of the approved norms for the US. That does not, in any way, change the fact that it is the legitimate and time-honored Tradition of the Church.

My point is to say that the those who approve of hand-holding do indeed have a point when they say that it is hypocritical for certain priests to accept one while rejecting the other. We are bound to follow the rubrics proposed by the conference of bishops and approved by Rome, whether we like them or not. Rome has not said that kneeling is in conformity with the rubrics (as such), rather Rome has said that kneeling may never be an excuse for denying Holy Communion.

In summary, if one kneels to receive, the pastor should kindly explain that we should follow the norms, but never, never, never, deny such a one the Eucharist.

 

[FrDavid96]

We’re essentially saying the same thing. Reception of Communion kneeling is currently a violation of the approved norms for the US. That does not, in any way, change the fact that it is the legitimate and time-honored Tradition of the Church. …

A follow-up:
If the priest-celebrant is using the “typical” edition of the Missal (the Latin version approved for the whole world) then the rubrics found there would apply, and receiving kneeling would be a legitimate option.

If, however, the priest is using the current Novus Ordo Mass, then the adaptations of the US bishops (approved by Rome) would apply.

Either missal is perfectly valid and licit, but the use of the two missals cannot be combined. It is a matter of using one or the other consistently throughout each individual Mass.

There is a problem in that the current OF Sacramentary does not have enough prayers printed in Latin, but that’s a different issue for a different thread, and we have yet to see what the new printing of the Sacramentary/Missal will contain…

 

[benedictgal]

A follow-up:
If the priest-celebrant is using the “typical” edition of the Missal (the Latin version approved for the whole world) then the rubrics found there would apply, and receiving kneeling would be a legitimate option.

If, however, the priest is using the current Novus Ordo Mass, then the adaptations of the US bishops (approved by Rome) would apply.

Either missal is perfectly valid and licit, but the use of the two missals cannot be combined. It is a matter of using one or the other consistently throughout each individual Mass.

There is a problem in that the current OF Sacramentary does not have enough prayers printed in Latin, but that’s a different issue for a different thread, and we have yet to see what the new printing of the Sacramentary/Missal will contain…

I would beg to differ with you, Fr. David. The response from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments indicates that either posture used for the the reception of Holy Communion is valid. If you carefully re-read my post, you will note that neither Cardinals Estevis nor Arinze made a distinction between the Latin GIRM and the English GIRM when issuing their ruling.

Were I to go to attend a Mass where you are the celebrant and receive Holy Communion kneeling, you could not licitly deny me our Lord because of my posture, becasue of the ruling issued by the Holy See. Furthermore, my posture would not constitute a liturgical abuse because the Holy See has already indicated that this posture is licit and I would not be deemed as disobedient simoply because I am exercising a valid option.

Now, the matter of hand-holding is something entirely different. This is a matter of someone or some group inserting a personal idiosyncracy into the Mass that does not belong there. As RS notes, no one, not even the priest, has the authority to insert something into the Holy Sacrifice on their own initiative.

There is one pastor in my diocese who has, in effect, banned the pratice at his parish because he said that it is not part of the rubrics. I support him in his efforts. If it is not in the Roman Missal than we have not business doing this.

 

[FrDavid96]

I would beg to differ with you, Fr. David. The response from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments indicates that either posture used for the the reception of Holy Communion is valid. If you carefully re-read my post, you will note that neither Cardinals Estevis nor Arinze made a distinction between the Latin GIRM and the English GIRM when issuing their ruling.

Were I to go to attend a Mass where you are the celebrant and receive Holy Communion kneeling, you could not licitly deny me our Lord because of my posture, becasue of the ruling issued by the Holy See. Furthermore, my posture would not constitute a liturgical abuse because the Holy See has already indicated that this posture is licit and I would not be deemed as disobedient simoply because I am exercising a valid option.

Now, the matter of hand-holding is something entirely different. This is a matter of someone or some group inserting a personal idiosyncracy into the Mass that does not belong there. As RS notes, no one, not even the priest, has the authority to insert something into the Holy Sacrifice on their own initiative.

There is one pastor in my diocese who has, in effect, banned the pratice at his parish because he said that it is not part of the rubrics. I support him in his efforts. If it is not in the Roman Missal than we have not business doing this.

Please understand me. I am NOT disputing the value of receiving Communion kneeling. I support it. I embrace it. I personally desire that the Holy See make it the required norm for the Universal Church.

However, the reality (which I consider unfortunate) is that in the US, standing is the only available option. Rome has not said that kneeling is an available option (re-read your own post on that), rather Rome has said that no one may be denied Communion because of it. They are two different, if related, issues.

I make the similar argument that one may not deny Communion to one who holds hands. When I say that Communion cannot be denied, I am certainly not saying that the practice of hand holding is in conformity with the norms of the Church. AND it is not in harmony with the Tradition of the Church and the meaning of the Liturgy.

My point is that we do need to be consistent. If I say that a priest should kindly explain to someone that hand-holding is not acceptable, that same priest should likewise kindly explain that kneeling is not provided-for in the current, applicable rubrics in the US. Neither should be denied Communion.

There is certainly a distinction between a time-honored practice of the Church which is in complete harmony with the entire Deposit of Faith and liturgical practices on the one hand (kneeling) and a practice which conflicts with the essential meaning of the Liturgy on the other hand (hand holding).

 

[benedictgal]

Please understand me. I am NOT disputing the value of receiving Communion kneeling. I support it. I embrace it. I personally desire that the Holy See make it the required norm for the Universal Church.

However, the reality (which I consider unfortunate) is that in the US, standing is the only available option. Rome has not said that kneeling is an available option (re-read your own post on that), rather Rome has said that no one may be denied Communion because of it. They are two different, if related, issues.

I make the similar argument that one may not deny Communion to one who holds hands. When I say that Communion cannot be denied, I am certainly not saying that the practice of hand holding is in conformity with the norms of the Church. AND it is not in harmony with the Tradition of the Church and the meaning of the Liturgy.

My point is that we do need to be consistent. If I say that a priest should kindly explain to someone that hand-holding is not acceptable, that same priest should likewise kindly explain that kneeling is not provided-for in the current, applicable rubrics in the US. Neither should be denied Communion.

There is certainly a distinction between a time-honored practice of the Church which is in complete harmony with the entire Deposit of Faith and liturgical practices on the one hand (kneeling) and a practice which conflicts with the essential meaning of the Liturgy on the other hand (hand holding).

Fr. David, I worked in the Texas House of Representatives for 12 years long enough to find loopholes, open them and close them. I think that you missed one loophole in Cardinal Estevis’ response (one, in fact, that is large enough to drive a semi right through). Here it is:

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.

So, there was a catch when it came to the Holy See approving the USCCB’s request (or, any national episcopal conferences’ request, for that matter) to establish standing as the norm for receiving Holy Communion: they would allow it so long as communicants would not be denied kneeling if they chose to do so.

Therefore, you would not be in violation of anything if your communicants wanted to kneel to receive our Lord because that is a legitimate posture for receiving Holy Communion. Yes, standing is the norm in the United States. No one is disputing that. However, kneeling is just as valid. The loophole is right there.

 

[pnewton]

What is Mass about? Mass is about a God to man link. We eat the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. True?

One could argue that holding hands during Mass is verging on idolatry.

Mass is not exclusively about the relationship between God and man, unless by man you are referring to the plural use. “Our” Father, not my Father we pray. Mass is offered in the plural. We are gathered as community in Mass. This has always been the basic doctrine of the Church. In fact, the very importance of celebrating liturgy in a set way is a demonstration of our unity.

There are many fine arguments against holding hands at Mass, but I do not think idolotry is a valid one. Recognizing the importance of us assembled as a people before God is no where near denying that we are in fact, before God. It is also not giving each other worship due to God.

 

[ncjohn]

This is a matter of someone or some group inserting a personal idiosyncracy into the Mass that does not belong there. As RS notes, no one, not even the priest, has the authority to insert something into the Holy Sacrifice on their own initiative.

You are correct that individuals are not to insert things into the liturgy, but holding hands is not inserting anything into the liturgy unless a third party, such as a priest or some other liturgical minister, is directing people to do it. The fact that it exists within a parish “culture” does not mean that it has been “inserted”, only that it has been found favorable within that parish culture. And of course one always has the option to not participate, “peer pressure” notwithstanding.

If one makes that argument that individuals choosing on their own to hold hands is inserting something, then any other posture that an individual takes is also inserting something. That just doesn’t hold water.

I guarantee you, given the amount of “heat” this topic has generated through the years, that if the Church considered it an issue it would have been very cleary addressed in RS, which it conspicuously was not.

A priest is certainly welcome to express his views on whether he thinks it appropriate. He is welcome to try to build a culture around those views. But he is just as out of place to try to forbid it as he would be to direct it. Inserting favored positions of his own, or prohibiting legitimate choices of individuals, when the rubrics don’t address the issue, would be just as much “inserting things into the liturgy” as any other modification he was to make.

Peace,

 

[Phemie]

Please understand me. I am NOT disputing the value of receiving Communion kneeling. I support it. I embrace it. I personally desire that the Holy See make it the required norm for the Universal Church.

However, the reality (which I consider unfortunate) is that in the US, standing is the only available option. Rome has not said that kneeling is an available option (re-read your own post on that), rather Rome has said that no one may be denied Communion because of it. They are two different, if related, issues.

Actually, Rome has said that, in a further response to the question in 2003:

Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

Prot. n. 47 / 03 / L

Rome, 26 February 2003

Dear [name deleted],

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received through official channels your letter dated 1 December 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent recognitio of this Congregation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion.

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.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: “… 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”.

This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.

With every prayerful good wish, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Mons. Mario Marini
Undersecretary

That response makes it quite clear that even though permission to stand was granted, kneeling is still a perfectly legitimate option otherwise one would be acting illicitly.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David, I worked in the Texas House of Representatives for 12 years long enough to find loopholes, open them and close them. I think that you missed one loophole in Cardinal Estevis’ response (one, in fact, that is large enough to drive a semi right through). Here it is:

So, there was a catch when it came to the Holy See approving the USCCB’s request (or, any national episcopal conferences’ request, for that matter) to establish standing as the norm for receiving Holy Communion: they would allow it so long as communicants would not be denied kneeling if they chose to do so.

Therefore, you would not be in violation of anything if your communicants wanted to kneel to receive our Lord because that is a legitimate posture for receiving Holy Communion. Yes, standing is the norm in the United States. No one is disputing that. However, kneeling is just as valid. The loophole is right there.

Look, we are in agreement. I wish I could get you to see that.

The norms for the US is that standing is the only posture prescribed. You yourself said that “standing is the norm in the United States. No one is disputing that.” I’m trying to agree with you.

The posture of kneeling is technically not “permitted” and therefore technically not in harmony with the rubrics. Fine. Now to answer the question of what to do if someone kneels to receive Communion? The answer, as I see it, is that such a one MUST be admitted to receive the Sacrament. Further, the priest should find a way of pastorally, charitably, respectfully and in all kindness explain privately to that person that the posture is not in harmony with the rubrics, as they are now. If that person comes back to receive kneeling, Communion MUST be granted without any stipulation.

What I truly fail to understand here is how you see that you and I are somehow in disagreement. I just don’t see it. Please explain it to me.

 

[benedictgal]

Look, we are in agreement. I wish I could get you to see that.

The norms for the US is that standing is the only posture prescribed. You yourself said that “standing is the norm in the United States. No one is disputing that.” I’m trying to agree with you.

The posture of kneeling is technically not “permitted” and therefore technically not in harmony with the rubrics. Fine. Now to answer the question of what to do if someone kneels to receive Communion? The answer, as I see it, is that such a one MUST be admitted to receive the Sacrament. Further, the priest should find a way of pastorally, charitably, respectfully and in all kindness explain privately to that person that the posture is not in harmony with the rubrics, as they are now. If that person comes back to receive kneeling, Communion MUST be granted without any stipulation.

What I truly fail to understand here is how you see that you and I are somehow in disagreement. I just don’t see it. Please explain it to me.

You are the one who says that it is technically not permitted, while I say to you (and the Holy See says, as well) that this posture is most certainly permitted. Yes, we do agree that the norm is standing. However, you are the one who called receiving Holy Communion kneeling a liturgical abuse.

Quite frankly, BOTH practices (kneeling for Communion AND holding hands during the Our Father) constitute liturgical abuse.

Those are your words, Fr. David, and they are what prompted me to respond to your post. How can you call kneeling to receive Holy Communion a liturgical abuse when Rome has given an opposite answer? How can you make that claim when the Holy Fahter himself is distributing Holy Communion to those communicants who kneel to receive? That is the bone of contention here. That is why I respectfully disagree with your assertion that kneeling is a liturgical abuse, especially since Rome has ruled to the contrary.

 

[FrDavid96]

You are the one who says that it is technically not permitted, while I say to you (and the Holy See says, as well) that this posture is most certainly permitted. Yes, we do agree that the norm is standing. However, you are the one who called receiving Holy Communion kneeling a liturgical abuse.

Those are your words, Fr. David, and they are what prompted me to respond to your post. How can you call kneeling to receive Holy Communion a liturgical abuse when Rome has given an opposite answer? How can you make that claim when the Holy Fahter himself is distributing Holy Communion to those communicants who kneel to receive? That is the bone of contention here. That is why I respectfully disagree with your assertion that kneeling is a liturgical abuse, especially since Rome has ruled to the contrary.

OK. I’ll grant that. When I said that kneeling was an abuse, that was too strong a word. I should have said that it is technically not called-for in the rubrics, and the rubrics do specifically list only standing as the proper posture.

As for what the Holy Father does (and here, I’m talking specifically about the times when he “requires” kneeling to receive), I believe I’ve already addressed that. He is acting on his own authority, and that authority is that of the Successor to Peter. He has every authority to choose to do it himself, I’m merely saying that individual priests cannot take it upon themselves to give themselves that same license, in the absence of the Holy Father giving them such authority. Personally, I hope that he does.

He does not deny Communion to anyone who kneels. No priest may deny Communion to anyone who kneels.

 

[Phemie]

OK. I’ll grant that. When I said that kneeling was an abuse, that was too strong a word. I should have said that it is technically not called-for in the rubrics, and the rubrics do specifically list only standing as the proper posture.

As for what the Holy Father does (and here, I’m talking specifically about the times when he “requires” kneeling to receive), I believe I’ve already addressed that. He is acting on his own authority, and that authority is that of the Successor to Peter. He has every authority to choose to do it himself, I’m merely saying that individual priests cannot take it upon themselves to give themselves that same license, in the absence of the Holy Father giving them such authority. Personally, I hope that he does.

He does not deny Communion to anyone who kneels. No priest may deny Communion to anyone who kneels.

MUST a priest use the indult that was granted to him?? There was an indult to pour the Precious Blood from a carafe to the Chalice – it didn’t mean that every priest had to do it that way, did it? Just that they could if they wanted. And yes, I know it no longer exists.

It’s the same with standing. The indult grants permission to stand, in direct opposition to the universal norm, but it doesn’t mandate it.

 

[malphono]

Whereas I am a life-long Easterner, I cannot resist a comment on the issue of kneeling vs standing (or v.v.) for communion in the Roman Rite. (Actually, the debate on standing vs kneeling, crops up in the East too, but that’s for another thread and another time.)

It seems to me that Phemie got it right in post #267. The communication from the Congregation on Divine Worship cited there clearly (to me, at least) supports benedictgal’s assertion in posts 262 & 257 that the English GIRM does not supercede the Latin, but is supplementary to it.

Now, FrDavid96 in post #261also makes an interesting remark:

FrDavid96:

If the priest-celebrant is using the “typical” edition of the Missal (the Latin version approved for the whole world) then the rubrics found there would apply, and receiving kneeling would be a legitimate option.

If, however, the priest is using the current Novus Ordo Mass, then the adaptations of the US bishops (approved by Rome) would apply.

Either missal is perfectly valid and licit, but the use of the two missals cannot be combined. It is a matter of using one or the other consistently throughout each individual Mass.

I agree that the Missals may not be “combined” but the US English version is taken from the “editio typica” with the difference being that it includes specific indults granted to the USCCB. Perhaps I’m wrong, but to me that says "the editio typica is the norm, but in the US it may be done this way" not that “it must be done this way.”

In a somewhat convoluted sort of way, it looks to me that when FrDavid96 says in post #268

Look, we are in agreement.

he’s right. You are in agreement.

The short version is that I think I’m basically saying what Phemie said in post #271

Phemie:

The indult grants permission to stand, in direct opposition to the universal norm, but it doesn’t mandate it.

 

[FrDavid96]

MUST a priest use the indult that was granted to him?? There was an indult to pour the Precious Blood from a carafe to the Chalice – it didn’t mean that every priest had to do it that way, did it? Just that they could if they wanted. And yes, I know it no longer exists.

It’s the same with standing. The indult grants permission to stand, in direct opposition to the universal norm, but it doesn’t mandate it.

Phemie,
The practice of standing to receive Communion is not an “indult.” It is a change to the universal law which was suggested by the conference of bishops for the US and approved by Rome. That’s not, by definition, an indult. It is an outright change to the liturgical law which has been made by legitimate authority.

Let’s not confuse an indult on the one hand with the recognitio of the Holy See on the other hand.

And no, a priest is not required to make use of an indult, but he is required to follow the letter of the liturgical law promulgated for the place where the Mass occurs.

 

[benedictgal]

Phemie,
The practice of standing to receive Communion is not an “indult.” It is a change to the universal law which was suggested by the conference of bishops for the US and approved by Rome. That’s not, by definition, an indult. It is an outright change to the liturgical law which has been made by legitimate authority.

Let’s not confuse an indult on the one hand with the recognitio of the Holy See on the other hand.

And no, a priest is not required to make use of an indult, but he is required to follow the letter of the liturgical law promulgated for the place where the Mass occurs.

Fr. David, individual conferences were allowed to petition Rome for permission to have communicants receive Holy Communion standing as long as communicants who desired to receive Our Lord while kneeling were not denied. That is the huge loophole right there, as I mentioned in my earlier post. In fact as late as 1982, my pastor was still using the communion rail for the reception of Holy Communion. In 1976, when I received my First Holy Communion, I received on the tongue and while kneeling at the communion rail.

Furthermore, if you werer to look at the Latin version of the 2002 edition of the GIRM, kneelign is still valid. Standing is the one that has the petition and that petition is granted so long as the conferences understand that if a communicant approaches and kneels, he is not to be denied Holy Communion nor is he to be labled as disobedient. Nor would the celebrant be labeled disobedlient if he allowed communicants at his Masses to receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue.

 

[Phemie]

Phemie,
The practice of standing to receive Communion is not an “indult.” It is a change to the universal law which was suggested by the conference of bishops for the US and approved by Rome. That’s not, by definition, an indult. It is an outright change to the liturgical law which has been made by legitimate authority.

Let’s not confuse an indult on the one hand with the recognitio of the Holy See on the other hand.

And no, a priest is not required to make use of an indult, but he is required to follow the letter of the liturgical law promulgated for the place where the Mass occurs.

But Rome has already said that the person who kneels for Communion in the US does nothing illicit or disobedient, simply because that is the universal norm.

 

[benedictgal]

But Rome has already said that the person who kneels for Communion in the US does nothing illicit or disobedient, simply because that is the universal norm.

Exactly, and that would also apply were a priest go either way with distributing Holy Communion. Yes, the norm here in the U.S. is standing, but, the celebrant would not be disobeying if he distributes to those who are kneeling. Either posture is valid because both are universal.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David, individual conferences were allowed to petition Rome for permission to have communicants receive Holy Communion standing as long as communicants who desired to receive Our Lord while kneeling were not denied. That is the huge loophole right there, as I mentioned in my earlier post. In fact as late as 1982, my pastor was still using the communion rail for the reception of Holy Communion. In 1976, when I received my First Holy Communion, I received on the tongue and while kneeling at the communion rail.

Furthermore, if you werer to look at the Latin version of the 2002 edition of the GIRM, kneelign is still valid. Standing is the one that has the petition and that petition is granted so long as the conferences understand that if a communicant approaches and kneels, he is not to be denied Holy Communion nor is he to be labled as disobedient. Nor would the celebrant be labeled disobedlient if he allowed communicants at his Masses to receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue.

It is not a loophole. A loophole is an **unintended **consequence of following the letter of the law. There is nothing unintended about it.

My point: by calling it a “loophole” you are actually harming your own argument in favor of allowing Communion kneeling (a position which I share with you)

 

[benedictgal]

It is not a loophole. A loophole is an **unintended **consequence of following the letter of the law. There is nothing unintended about it.

My point: by calling it a “loophole” you are actually harming your own argument in favor of allowing Communion kneeling (a position which I share with you)

Fr. David, the point is that there is nothing ilicit about my receiving our Lord while kneeling and there is nothing ilicit about your distributing our Lord to those communicants who wish to kneel while receiving Him. Kneeling is just as valid a posture as standing. No one is disobeying the Church by taking this posture. Rome has made that abundantly clear. It is definitely not a liturgical abuse.

Now, going back to the hand-holding issue. This is something that shouldn’t even happen. Here, we are turning the Mass into something completely horizontal. Granted, the prayer is directed to “Our Father” it is not about us. It is not directed towards the community. The hand-holding was pretty much inserted based on someone’s or some group’s personal idiosyncracy and has no basis in liturgical tradition, none whatsoever. The hand-holding gesture supposedly symbolizes community. But, what proponents of this misguided gesture may not realize is that the community aspect already comes into play when we come together to worship the Lord. They may also fail to take into account that we are not by ourselbves. We are surrounded by an unseen cloud of witnesses, the Church Triumphant (the saints and angels in heaven) and the Church Suffering (the souls in purgatory). Thus, it’s not just the warm bodies in the pews who form the community, its the entire Church. I’m curious as to who is going to hold the hands of the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering who are gathered with us. Therefore, it’s not just about us, it’s about the entire Church.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Perhaps because this was the norm under the EF and it was not some personal idiosyncracy that popped up like the issue of hand-holding. That’s a huge difference. Furthermore, kneeling is a universal norm; hand-holding is not.

You have been shown that the universal norm is “kneeling or standing as the Bishops conference instructs.” You conveniently select the out of context phrase which suports your POV.

Even your quote

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.

shows no validation for your erroneous claim. As FR David explained “not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.” does not change the norm.

Lux